User talk:Eol Gurgwathren

January 2024

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Liberal Catholic Church, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reliable citations. Please not revert. Rather edit and engage in constructive discussion for this page. It's been reduced to a meaningless blob. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eol Gurgwathren! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Liberal Catholic Church several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Liberal Catholic Church, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am only reverting because my careful changes we simply reverted in the first place. No discussion or explanation. Until that happens with the work I'be put into it, I have no choice but to revert. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you actually do have a choice, and continuing to revert would risk getting you into trouble for violation of the edit warring policy. Please read that policy carefully. You will note that in the very first section it says that edit warring is banned even if the edits you are restoring are justifiable. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engage with I have just said. I undid an unjust reversion first. It is the other users doing this to me rather than engaging with me. They have other options. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now I am being harassed by some ultratraditionalist Catholic (Veverve) who has the clear intention of keeping the Liberal Church information surpressed and ambiguous. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Liberal Catholic Church, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable and approrpiate. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Veverve animosity Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have no idea what "Veverve animosity" means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (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.

Some animosity and frustration has developed with the editing patterns on Liberal Catholic Church page. Complete reversions were made to content I introduced without flagging the content.

After some back and forth, User TSP became helpful and pointed out a better starting point for the article, however, I went through the process of addressing their concerns. If it is required that I apologise to Veverve for mt assumptions of bad faith I will do so.

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and it seems I didn't quite understand the norms and stringency on the topic. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Animosity with user named Veverve Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2024 (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.

Some animosity and frustration has developed with the editing patterns on Liberal Catholic Church page. Complete reversions were made to content I introduced without flagging the content.

After some back and forth, User TSP became helpful and pointed out a better starting point for the article, however, I went through the process of addressing their concerns. If it is required that I apologise to Veverve for mt assumptions of bad faith I will do so.

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and it seems I didn't quite understand the norms and stringency on the topic. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid unblock request. It is utterly unconvincing. Carefully read the Guide to appealing blocks, several times if necessary, and try again. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please place your edits in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header window. Your entire initial statement should replace the words "your reason here". 331dot (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Animosity with User Veverve is resolved. We can move forward civilly. Veverve has raise an used on the Liberal Catholic Church page which I can help with and they seem to have accepted some of my sources. So we can move forward co-operatively. No-one else seems to be contributing to the page. And I can help Veverve find more sources and details. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That does not address your violation of WP:EW, your violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, your violation of WP:SPA, or your violation of WP:NPA. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (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.

See above Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

With regards to WP:EW, and WP: Battleground, Veverve has added some of my sources so we can continue civilly now that I can see where they are coming from. WP:SPA editors are allowed. Scrutiny is understandable. So I'll be more conscious of neutrality. WP:NPA is me calling Veverve an ultratraditionalist Catholic based on the bans on their own talk page. I am happy to rescind that accusation in spirit of co-operation now that I see they have accepted some of my sources and thanked me for my input on the Liberal Catholic Church talk page. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per the discussion below and your unblock request, it appears that a stop in disruptive behavior is conditional upon other people's cooperation. You need to stop making comments relating to other editors or making comments like I see that I should have reported them for biting the newbies instead. I don't have confidence that the disruptive behavior will not continue if you are unblocked, so please take some time to directly address WP:EW, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, and WP:NPA in context. (that is, to show us that you understand your violation instead of summarizing what is on those pages) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (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.

See above. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean by I am happy to rescind that accusation [..] now that [..] they have accepted some of my sources, are you suggesting that the personal attack is completely justified if Veverve doesn't do that?

Secondly, you still haven't addressed your original block reason: edit warring and battleground behavior. You need to show an understanding of these policies before we can be sure that the disruptive behavior won't continue. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve has already added my sources in and added some more neutral ones of their own so I am less inclined to hold to my suspicion of malice.

Here is a summary:

1) After his repeated reversions with curt notes I grew frustrated and wondered if he had a special interest in suppressing my changes. I looked at his talk page and saw Veverve has banned multiple times in the past for repeated reversions and content removal, so I assumed this was a similar situation.

2) Given Veverve's avid interest in Roman Catholicism, I suspected they were trying to cut out Independent Catholic narratives by implementing a very strict interpretation of content sourcing, which I have not encountered on related pages.

3) As the conflict reached a climax, User TSP could tell that I was new and pointed me to an older version of the Liberal Catholic Church page and showed me how to access it and instructed me to find more secondary sources. I followed their helpful advice and posted my revison of the page.

4) Veverve complained about my behavioir and I was banned.

5) Veverve then went and reinstated the short version of the page with some of the sources I put in and thanked me for my efforts. This behavioir, while not required by Wikipedia, gave me pause for thought on my suspicions of Veverve's intent for the page. Newbies often help best when they are expanding stubs that seem neglected or vague, but of which they have a lot of knowledge, but often misinterpret the significance of primary vs secondary sources required for further additions. Often experiences editors will completely wipe out and revert changes. This is disorienting and in this case I felt attacked.

6) By the end of the editing experience, I could tell TSP was actually trying to help me and RetroCosmos was trying to show me the difference words can create in tone. Veverve, whatever their personal identity, religion, or motives is not up for speculation, and has demonstrated that they do accept other sources, and I am happy to work with them now that I have a better feel for how they value sources and also how sourcing works on Wikipedia in general.

7) I understand that Wikipedia's policies are geared towards preventing poor sourcing and the engagement I've had on this ban shows me that editors do care, and they are not all out to squash new content. I just have to be more thorough when sourcing material.

As the conflict reached a climax, User TSP became helpful and pointed me to an older page for the Liberal Catholic hwhich they said was more helpful and instructed me to source the claims, which I did.urch. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some of typos in that length response. Just ignore them. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question; Are you saying that what you said was justified at that time? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd also like you to address the last decline reason left by Yamla. Please tell us why edit warring, battleground behavior, leaving personal attacks, and having a single purpose account could harm Wikipedia. Simply saying "I can work with this person now" is insufficient. You're expected to work with everyone here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Edit warring is not good because it doesn't allow for organic progress to be made on Wikipedia articles. It's better to ask for citations on minor changes rather doing reverts all the time. Even better is to discuss on the talk page of an article to resolve on a way forward.

2) Battleground behaviour doesn't allow for nuanced views to come through and makes Wikipedia a confrontational space, rather than an informative space. It's important for comments to be helpful rather than bellicose

3) Personal attacks limit discussions in all environments, including Wikipedia. It's best to avoid accusing the person of having agenda and rather report to admins if there is evidence of bad-faith editing rather than making accusations about the person's faith.

3) Single purpose accounts can pursue narrow interests and makes Wikipedia less balanced. While single purpose accounts can provide a lot more information on a specific topic, Wikipedia does not admins who are committed to broad-based editing, and this comes from cultivating accounts which are not single-purpose. This was my initial assessment of Veverve, by the way. I assumed since they only edit Catholic pages, that this counted as such. They have been banned for this kind of behaviour before. I see that I should have reported them for biting the newbies instead. I had no idea the oversight would be this rigorous, given the state I found the LCC article in. I'm glad I raised my objections but I can see that it's possible to get through on topics with civil discussion on the talk pages (I had no idea these existed before, as a casual user of Wikipedia, by the way: most people don't).

4) I can work with other people. As I was trying to make clear earlier I found TSP's comments helpful to a new editor, and instead of doing a revert, I dug up references on their request. I look forwarward to editing in this spirit. I'm happy to work these kinds of criticism. Next time my editing is reverted wholesale with criticisms I don't understand, I'm going to talk to that editor until it's clear what the next step should be. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attacks against me force me to intervene to clarify some points the admins may have missed.

You blame the fact that Veverve complained about my behavioir and I was banned: yes, complaining against your behaviour is something normal. And since you have been blocked, it appears my complaint was legitimate; you have only your own behaviour to blame.

I have never in any way attempted to be mean-spirited towards you, please stop those accusations (you wrote: I see that I should have reported them [Veverve] for biting the newbies instead).

Veverve has already added my sources in and added some more neutral ones of their own so I am less inclined to hold to my suspicion of malice: the user implies my previous behaviour of asking them to use RSs to add information (refusing blogs, etc.) can legitimately be seen as malicious, that unless I concede to them I can be considered as a POV-pusher or as a disruptive user.

[Veverve] ha[s] been banned for this kind of behaviour before: I have never had any block for POV-pushing. And I do not only edit Catholic pages, as can clearly be seen in my user page. Veverve (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, you have been blocked for doing constant revertsvand edit-wars, like you did to me edits. But just chill. It's over. There is some additional content to upload and I'll be happy for you or anyone else to peruse. I have lots to contribute on other topics and this is a learning process.

While there is need to curate and keep the editorial standards of Wikipedia high, this needs to be balanced against punitive gatekeeping. This is a work in progress and needs more active active collaboration. I'm not going try sock-puppet to get my view across. I'd like my account to be unbanned so I can continue. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

WP:BATTLEGROUND I see that the infringements results in a battleground and have read the article and will not do this in future. Edit-warring: read the policy now and intend work co-operatively on the talk page rather than confrontationally. WP:SPA special interest: I have read this too and intend on adding content in other topics, such as chemical pages etc. Personal attacks: I have read this and intend on not imputing bad faith motives etc on other editors. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as I see it as a worthy endeavour.Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

per discussion with consultation with blocking admin at Special:permalink/1195461432#Unblock discussion. I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks

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.

Unblock discussion

@Bbb23: Is this adequate to unblock? Do we need a wp:TOPICBAN for Liberal Catholic Church? Or do we punt downfield six months? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Six months is more reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eol Gurgwathren: "Animosity with User Veverve is resolved," but what about the next disagreement? What happens then? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll behave myself and I'm learning as I go. The topic ban sounds like a reasonable measure in case you are concerned. I'm happy to contribute in other areas. Eager to help. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's inadequate. Conflict is inevitable in a project with highly intelligent people who see things differently.. You will need to learn about that before you are unblocked, and describe how to deal with it in your old words. I'm afraid you are not ready yet, though you are closer. The problem is, you do not want to be unblocked before you are ready because you could wind up indeffed again there will be little chance of successfully appealing a second time. Ima close this and ask you to not make another unblock request until six months from now. If you can edit a different Wikipedia constructively in that time with five hundred constructive edits over six month, without serious problems, it would work in your favor. Formal decline when my fingers untangle. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "different Wikipedia"? Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias .If you are fluent in a language other than English, there's a Wikipedia in that language..Simple Wikipedia is in English, but it's different there. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. It's been over six months since I was blocked from editing Wikipedia. As advised, I've decided to ask to be unblocked at this time after the incident with Veverve. I feel the time has been constructive and I'm ready to add content in the fields where I have some expertise.

Decline reason:

Decline appeal as currently written. As CoffeeCrumbs suggested below, the appeal is rather thin on substance. Simply waiting six months is not sufficient; the six month timeline was just the period of that needed to elapse before a new request could be made. Please review WP:GAB and post a new appeal for review that summarizes the dispute, what you would do differently, and the areas you would like to edit if unblocked.Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 23 August 2024 (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.

No CU evidence of block evasion in the recent log. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just following up on this. Am I going to be unblocked? Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears unlikely; most of the time, the unblock request is procedurally closed by this amount of time. What this means is that no admin has been convinced by this unblock request, but also nobody has committed to simply declining it. It's not surprisingly, honestly, because it's a rather thin request as you simply declare the time was constructive, without any information about how it was specifically constructive. Nor did you talk about your block and how you would deal with a similar situation in the future, as Deepfriedokra requested in January, and it does not appear you did any editing elsewhere that would have been a show of good faith that demonstrated that you could collaborate effectively in a Wiki environment. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's possible, but I did not get a response in that vein. How do I proceed from here? Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]