Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
I gave the explanation in my edit summary- all that information predates the movie, and does not (obviously) mention the movie's accuracy. It is thus inappropriate SYNTH in the article about the movie. Red Slapper (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a bunch of lies on your part. Every single source makes the connection between the film, the star, the producers, the director, and QAnon. There's a bunch more sources that have been mentioned on the talk page already, and the only reason I haven't added them to the article is because it would be overkill at this point. The discussion overwhelmingly favors inclusion of that section. You are in the wrong. Your personal feelings about Ballard and right-wing Christianity have no bearing here. Sit this one out. You're done. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any reverts related to QAAnon, you may be confusing me with someone else. I made the revert related to accuracy.
I am strongly in favor of you summoning the attention of an admin, especially after your WP:HOUND edit here. In fact, consider this a formal invitation: PLEASE alert the admins to what you've been doing. I will be making popcorn. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Red Slapper, thanks for starting a discussion on the article's talk page. You may like to participate in the section "RfC: QAnon", a subsection of an already-existing accuracy discussion about WP:SYNTH concerns.
I had fully protected the page to stop an edit war before, and there has been considerable disruption around the Accuracy section already. It may not have been your intention, but you have joined an edit war with your reverts. I'm glad to see that this has stopped for now; please keep up discussing instead of edit warring. RfCs are usually closed after 30 days, not even a third of which have passed. Please wait until a formal closure exists instead of re-removing the section.
Sure, I have no intention of editing that section again until it is resolved on the Talk page. I don't think the RfC related to QAnon is the right place for this, as it is a separate issue from the Accuracy section (and I have no issue with mentioning QAnon if reliable sources do so in connection with the film.
While I have you here, have a look at the above comments by Fred Zepelin, in the 'Removal of sourced material", where he calls my explanations "a bunch of lies", ascribes them to what he imagine to be my "personal feelings about Ballard and right-wing Christianity+ - might you have a word with them before these personal attacks get out of hand? Red Slapper (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're at it, let's look at this article, which explicitly talks about the film, the accuracy of events depicted, and how Ballard has embellished details in the past. It talks about all of it. And it's a reliable secondary source. Your quest to quash such facts is clearly not NPOV. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You actually appear to have been misled, its the accuracy section which ToBeFree was talking about and which you appeared to declare having no intention of editing again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I indeed did not edit it - FZ's comment was related to an edit I made in the QAnon section, Try reading a little more carefully next time, before butting into conversations you are not a part of.
I didn't 'declare having no intention of editing again." - I said i'd wait until it was resolved, and indeed the issue I identified has been resolved by removing the SYNTH content. Red Slapper (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or just not taking any care whatsoever to read before you post? The link you posted above was made BEFORE I told TBF I won't edit that section again until the issue is resolved. That section is indeed the "Accuracy" section, and FZ's comment was related to an edit I made today to a different section, about QAnon. Red Slapper (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that like you, they haven't bothered to pay attention to what they are responding to. You are wise to take your leave before digging yourself deeper. Red Slapper (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't you taking a leave? that would have been smarter.
Pointing out that you did not carefully read what you were responding to is not a personal attack. Don't butt into conversations not related to you with baseless accusations predicated on your misreading, and expect to not be criticized for that.
Ah I see what you mean. It was already in the article in this version [2], prior to my edits, and when I restored an earlier version to fix a different issue created by KylimeDragon, it got restored, which was not my intent. Red Slapper (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if that might be the case. Meanwhile, I didn't see a source that said that the group disavows conspiracy theories so I've removed it, added more from Vice. Doug Wellertalk20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source (already in the article) says "Operation Underground Railroad says it has no connection to QAnon and vaguely disavows conspiracy theories on its website" Red Slapper (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it is hard when your being subject to bad faith, but the rules are the rules and you can’t be uncivil regardless of the circumstances. It’s easy to be blocked for bad faith, but it’s more easy to be blocked for uncivilly. At best be gracious with the issue at hand. Wolfquack (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it
Please, you aren't helping. See FZ's talk page to see what I've told him. He seems a pretty good editor normally, great on spotting socks. Doug Wellertalk08:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 2023
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. 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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
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).
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).
Thanks for pointing me to that, at least now I know what you're talking about. I don't really know how to respond to what is there - it is just a bunch of general observations that could apply to so many people - shares the same POV with another editor? talks about reliable sources? Some of it seems clearly wrong - 'multiple short, increasingly snippy replies in talk page discussions' and suggesting to compare with [3] where one of the last edits by that user on a Talk page is a 1300 character missive? Red Slapper (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Aside from what is stated at the SPI, this is a checkuser block, meaning that private technical evidence supports it. This makes it difficult to accept the information in the SPI as a mere coincidence. If technical evidence has led to the wrong conclusion, you will need to describe how. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 24 July 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.
331dot , How can I explain why the technical evidence led to the wrong conclusion, when I don't know what it is? As far as I can tell, the evidence only said it was "possible"- a lot of things are "possible" Red Slapper (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do, though? I already pointed out that at least some of the non-private information in the sock report is incorrect, and the rest is very vague. The last sock listed there is User:CZUQZ - maybe someone can compare IP addresses? Red Slapper (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
