Dustfreeworld

Maiori forsan cum timore sententiam in me fertis quam ego accipiam ("Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it")  – Giordano Bruno

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I added this just to clarify that simply saying the word “sh*t” is not sanctionable, but using it to describe/attack another editor is probably is. Are you having problem with that?

And to borrow their words, I am tired of their attacks, their harassment, their complete lack of couth. No, they aren’t the worst editor in the history of the project. I am.

So do you really think I am a very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others who persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE? (You know all these stem from the fact that people presumed that a tbanned user is a bad editor [yes the tban that you refused to amend. FYI, according to our policies it’s not correct to say that you can not amend it “unilaterally”. It is imposed by a single admin and is amendable by that single admin.] It caused much misunderstandings, prejudices, humiliations and cyberbullying/harassments afterwards. I have been tolerating all that. And you now choose to block me. Do you think it’s fair? You are trying to destroy the last bit of respect that I have for you). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Trying to bully the blocking admin is probably not your best choice of action. Bullying me is allowed, I'm a nobody here, but ScottishFinnishRadish is a respected member of this community. I only pray that they read the entire report, and see how many times you attacked other editors in the space of a week. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok I just read this

• User talk:Adolphus79#c-Hiobazard-20241029140200-Hi Adolphus79, 2
  • I do see who is canvassing and bullying our admin now.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, re ”Bullying me is allowed ... I only pray that they read the entire report, and see how many times you attacked other editors in the space of a week” No that’s not true.

I’ve never bullied or attacked anyone. Everything I said in that WP:ANI discussion is true. Saying that I have, without providing any diff (that isn’t misrepresented), is bordering on aspersions. Yes there are serveral other editors that disagree with /criticise me in that discussion. However, the fact that for a high visibily venue like that (up to 6-7K pageviews per day), there were only so few of them, and that almost all of them were either pinged / canvassesd to that discussion and/or have content disputes with me before (including the bloocking admin, who were pinged there), i.e., not uninvolved, is enough to prove that who is at wrong and that the silent majority is likely on my side. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said when you protested to my closure at WP:AE, I would reopen it for another six hours if you wanted. Most people don't want reports open any longer than necessary, and it was clear that would be the result. Being a consensus of administrators at AE it would require a clear consensus at an appeal to modify or overturn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think after a person has stabbed someone, one can pretend that nothing had happened just by saying that “ok I’ll take out the knife if you want”. But it’s up to you. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, it’s not “a consensus of administrators”, as you can’t close that AE discussion as “a consensus of administrators” in less than 24 hours according to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures [1][2] But again, you are the one with the power and it’s all up to you. It’s how this Wikipedia works. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, you followed me from Indoor air quality to Air pollution in the United Kingdom to Joss paper ,etc. to the totally unrelated Asian News International, assuming bad faith, harass me and casting aspersions since 17 Oct, first on my talk then at ANI, refused to my attempt to make peace, saying that you had “mental health crisis” on my talk and saying that I bullied you at ANI. Aside from those emotional blackmail, which did earn my empathy, you cast 20-40 misrepresentations / aspersions against me either on my talk or at ANI. Just because you can’t accept losing, just like you did at RfA [3] (and I don’t think you have improved even you did admit after you were told that “you don’t have any knowledge about our policies” [4]). You know what kind of person you are. Do not post to this Talk page again. I’ll view any further comment by you as WP:HARASSMENT. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this is the discussion at WP:ANI that leads to the above block:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1254115812#User:Dustfreeworld_and_CIR

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The OP (and all the related IPs) who filed that ANI complaint against me is now blocked (CheckUser block):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:0:0:0:0/64

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Adolphus79 blocked on 29 Oct for grave dancing [5]. Unblocked the next day upon appeal
• Karnataka officially warned for engaging in sock puppetry [6], "The only reason that you're not currently blocked is because I didn't notice it until now, and blocks aren't supposed to be punitive."

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Re advocacy

@Canterbury Tail, re your recent comment at ANI and some of your recent reverts, I believe there’s misunderstanding somewhere. Yes I’m against pollution. BUT, I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who is *not* against pollution. I really can’t agree with your comment that I’m here to “bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia” or to RIGHTGREATWRONG. Quite the contrary, I’m here to improve our articles on that topic, and trying to reduce the biases/ misinformation/ viewpoint-unbalance. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis mine).

For example, for Air pollution in Hong Kong, before I edited it, it’s totally outdated, and heavily biased towards certain view points. [7] The causes are not just fuel combustion from power plants or cars. It’s much much more than that. Another example is the organization section. It only mentioned *one* organisation, which was heavily biased. I had removed it (moved to it's own article) and the list I added later was to fix that NPOV problem and FYI it’s *sourced* [8] to the government website [9][10] at the end of the section. Perhaps you didn’t notice the sources because I didn’t add it to every entry … I do agree maybe the list is a bit long and need some trimming, but I don’t think it should be completely removed.

While I do agree with some of your reverts and admit that I should have formatted the article better and shouldn’t have made it look like sandbox/draft, I believe most content removed are relevant and can be sourced, and I know HK so well that some info that looks like WP:SKYBLUE to me may look irrelevant or even advocacy for others … As I seem to be the only contributor there and the page has very low visibility (only 10-20 visitors each day), also, I was planning for retirement (after I have that article in an acceptable state) and was in a hurry, I admit that I was too relaxed with my edits there (e.g., many links that are now removed from the EL section should have been put in Further reading as sources for future article expansion instead of External links, and many of the see also links belong to the article body, instead, and, the structure/headings of the article needs much improvement which I didn’t have time to do better, etc.) Please accept my apologies. But again, please believe my good faith in making the article more comprehensive and less biased, instead of “advocacy”.

Another revert I want to talk about is the Other names section that you removed from Smog tower. FYI, the section was added per MOS:ALTNAME, and I’m not sure if a section like that needs to be sourced. It’s a new and emerging technology, with presence in countries that speaks different languages (e.g., Europe, India and China), and thus it’s not surprising for it to have many alternative names. Although I didn’t add the source, please be assured that all of them *can* be sourced. It’s because I either found those names *in* the sources when I edited the article, or, I had verified that those names were used in RS before adding them. I would be more than happy if you had tagged that section as Template:Unreferenced_section, rather than outright removal. Btw, I have never said that *everything* that's ever added to an article shouldn't be removed. No, that's not what I think. And I really don't understand why linking to the editing policy is a problem. People who really click on it and read on should know there are situations that justify removal (it's the first sub-section in FIXTHEPROBLEM ... I don't think everything should be preserved indiscriminately. Just that I believe most content can be tagged for improvement first (before possible removal), and that in this case for the Smog tower article, WP:CHALLENGE (which to my understanding means when an editor genuinely believes that no sources have ever been published that can support the material, and thus "material whose verifiability has been challenged" e.g., with a tag, can then be removed) should be a more appropriate reason for removal when compared with simply "unsourced" (for most non-contentious material).

There are more edits that I would like to explain or clarify. I should have written this a few days ago. But due to that case at ANI, which people holding grudges will make an issue with whatever thing I say, I decided to comment on “advocacy” only after that case. But that doesn’t matter anymore. Now that I’m blocked (at the highly visible ANI board with as much as 6K daily page views) and everyone thinks I’m a tendentious and disruptive (in addition to tbanned) editor, I can forsee that there will just be even more misunderstandings, prejudices, unneccessary conflicts, humiliations and cyberbullying/harassments in the future (unless I'm happy with being an editor that only fixes typos). FYI I'm not paid and I don't see any reason for me to tolerate all that anymore. I will retire (much sooner than I planned to) and I don’t think I will come back, except to fix some obvious problems in the articles (mostly not introduced by me) I contributed heavily (e.g., now in Air pollution in Hong Kong, Joss paper is under the section “Use of power tools”. Also, this section which talk about heavy equipments that use diesel does not belongs to the power tools section either. It’s somewhat complex. Construction and demolition can generate particulates both mechanically and by fuel combustion… and I haven’t made up my mind on the article’s structure yet, so there are the many empty sections you found). Btw, there are some very important causes missing from the air pollution in HK article now, for example construction and demolition wastes, electronic wastes (e wastes) and road works. E wastes is a significant issue in HK and was widely reported in the news (you can found some sources in the removed External links section). If you can add them back, I, and the people in my place, will definitely thank you for that. Regards,

PS. As for the low quality images, my apologies again, as I dropped my phone a few times recently ... re MOSIMAGERELEVANCE, as I took most of the photos and I see them happening almost every day, I’m quite sure that they are relevant, although the caption might have been written in a better way ... Aside, I believe that block of mine does reveal some problems of Wikipedia. For example, admins, like eveyone else, value their reputation and "face" and their relationship with other admins and/or editors. This sometimes makes actions (or no actions) difficult. This is something for the community (and/or WMF) to think about. Do we need separate accounts for admins (e.g., User:ABC (ADMIN), just like User:ABC (WMF)? Or, better yet, has someone who is completely uninvolved in the project (not even an editor) to be admin? Further, how should the harassment policies be enforced? Only when someone complains? Only enforced for those with first mover advantage? If the victims keep silence the admins keep silence too? Moreover, are we sure we need to have trials as public as what we now have at ANI, which are similar to "public spectacles", "public mass accusation meetings", etc. in which everyone (or anyone, including those who aren't from your village/city/state/country/continent and maybe just 8 years old, etc.) can throw stones? Can you imagine some of the employees of a publishing company (e.g., of a print encyclopedia) being yelled at or threatened with "Block! Ban! Fired!" Almost everyday? Is that a good working environment? Or just because here people are voluntory contributors so they have to accept that? Yes there is workplace bullying but that is another thing which is quite different from the open/public/internet "trials" we have here. Anyway. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Taboos of Wikipedia

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.

---

If you want to spend time at Wikipedia: use it in order to learn the taboos of Wikipedia. Seriously. That's the first thing an editor should learn, but it is never too late. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, by “taboos of Wikipedia” what do you mean? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Things that should not be said, and things that should not be done. E.g. QuackGuru's activism wasn't "wrong" according to the prevailing POV of Wikipedia, but the mere fact that he was an WP:ACTIVIST sealed his fate. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know that editor. It seems that they left long before I joined. If I may ask, why do you come to my talk citing an essay and describing another user who had decided to left the project / stay inactive more than four years ago as “activist” (and saying something strange about their “fate”)? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you should be more welcoming towards receiving hints about your own behavior.

Sometimes, it is other editors who are wrong, but at other times they are right and you are wrong.

You should know that the Wikipedia Community takes a dim view of "activists", even if those activists mean well. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading your comment I did reflect on my own behaviour again, but I really can’t find the problem mentioned.

When good-faith editors query about my edits, I always try to be patient and welcoming. The newest example is the one that just above this discussion. To quote myself:

“I do agree maybe the list is ... and need ... I do agree with some of your reverts and admit that I should have formatted the article better and shouldn’t have ... admit that I was too ... with my edits ... do better, etc.) Please accept my apologies ... I don't think everything should be preserved indiscriminately ...

PS ... my apologies again ... “

I explained my views and admitted what I could have done better, and apologised twice when needed. I have no idea why you think I “should be more welcoming”.

As for your “hints”, they are somewhat difficult for me to understand I would say. When you first mentioned about “taboos”, I did a quick search in order to understand what that means. Unfortunately, it only comes up with two links, [11]one is this page, another is your comment on an action imposed to your account in 2022. In that comment you said “I don't know all the taboos of Wikipedia. Now I know this taboo and I will behave accordingly.” It seems to me that you were still learning the “taboos” after you had registered for almost twenty years, while in your “hint” to me you said the “taboos” is “the first thing an editor should learn”. Further, I really have no idea about what’s that taboo that had led to that action, and again, I really don’t know who is Quackguru and how all these related. Please accept my apologies if my comments didn’t seem very welcoming. As to my personal view, I don’t think we need too much taboos here, as Wikipedia is not censored. Btw, I don’t think I’m an “activist”, no, not at all. Maybe it’s my username that gives such impression? Well, in fact a world that’s free of dust can be both good and bad. FYI, I often have concerns that a world completely free of dust would cause problems because it may be completely free of precipitation too (you may want to read Cloud condensation nuclei in case you are interested; again my username just doesn’t imply whether it’s good or bad, it’s up to people’s interpretation). That said, I certainly will take your advice and pay more attention whenever I see the word “taboos”. I agree with you that “Sometimes, it is other editors who are wrong, but at other times they are right and you are wrong.” I think reasonable people can disagree. I believe collaborative editing is the key to the success of Wikipedia, and mutual understanding and AGF are always more important and essential that those sanctions / punishments. Lastly, I think I’ll be closing this as I’m not feeling very well recently and probably won’t be responding swiftly / frequently and I don’t want to keep you waiting. Sorry again, and thank you. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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.