User talk:Ifdc

Hello Ifdc! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Peña

Hello Ifdc. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ifdc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ifdc|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Hipal (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal (talk) - I'm disappointed to see you've made a baseless accusation, notably without providing evidence. I will continue editing the page - if you have evidence of me being paid to edit this page then you can present it.

Ifdc (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread this standard notice. I'm not accusing you of anything. I am concerned that you're following in the steps of editors that do have a conflict of interest, of which 15 are listed on the article talk page. That's a large number for any article, and especially for a barely notable subject.

Are you saying you have no conflict of interest of any kind? You don't have to answer, but it would help. --Hipal (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no conflict of interest. May I also ask you to confirm that you have no conflict of interest of any kind? Thanks. Ifdc (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Let's move on to content policy then. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. Ifdc (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that Hipal never confirmed whether they have a conflict of interest. Ifdc (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdc, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ifdc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Precocious user

Hi, Ifdc. It's unusual for such a new user as you to know the rules about edit warring, and to find their way to the WP:ANEW noticeboard, or any noticeboard. May I ask if this is your first account? Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello - sorry I don't know who you are or why you are asking me personal questions. Take care. Ifdc (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator here. If you refuse to answer my question, which is hardly "personal", I will assume you're a sockpuppet. BTW, I will add another question: is your original account blocked? Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not a sock puppet. I have no other account. I found my way to a noticeboard because I read how to get there. Thanks for the warm welcome. Ifdc (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What's the reason for your great and exclusive interest in Dan Peña? Bishonen | tålk 19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

With respect, please don't put words in my mouth I don't have a "great and exclusive" interest in Dan Pena, but this is the article I've chosen to edit, is that alright? Ifdc (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For now. But you should realize the kind of impression it makes. Bishonen | tålk 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please also note my post here. If you continue to put unfair pressure on volunteer editors by arguing ad nauseam, I will block you for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please assume good faith. I'm starting to feel bullied as I haven't done anything wrong and you are threatening me with being blocked. There's no reason for it. My discussion with Hipal on the talk page is part of the BRD process, we agreed on some things and disagreed on others, and it was I who recommended we step back and let other editors come in. That isn't disruptive editing. You said on the talk page that my status is "dubious at best" - no, at best you should just believe me that I'm not a "sock puppet" and stop trying to find something that isn't there. Thanks. Ifdc (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdc, you've done plenty that's questionable. [1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]*[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]* --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[28][29][30][31][32][33] --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdc (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)User:Hipal has been hostile since the moment I started editing the dan pena article - I had no idea what I was getting involved with just by deciding to improve what was at the time a really shabby wiki entry. User:Hipal accusing me of being a paid advocate right off the bat when the only change I had added to begin with was the den pena was a latino american. Since then he violated the 3rr edit warring rule and since then he has been withholding consensus and refusing to specify which portions of the article he feels violates which policies. We have had a lengthy discussion on the talk page, you can see for yourselves. Things escalated further when User:Bishonen judged me guilty of being a sock puppet because I 'found my way to the admin's noticeboard too quickly'. Threatened to block me, etc. Perfectly innocent. In fact please if you don't mind kindly present whatever evidence you have. Ifdc (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You again accuse me of being hostile. Could you please redact or provide evidence for this accusation? --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this conflict can we just leave it alone? Thanks Ifdc (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You attack me (again), then are too tired to attempt to rectify your mistake? --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for peace and you continue to badger me. Leave me alone. Ifdc (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then make peace.--Hipal (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. You're not necessarily being paid, Ifdc, but it beggars belief that you don't have a conflict of interest. From your editing, it's impossible to believe you have not. Your repeated demands for "evidence" are in bad faith. Wikipedia's system protects your privacy, so what evidence, other than your editing, could I have, or could Hipal have? Again, if you continue to argue ad nauseam and wear down volunteers, you will be blocked, that's all. Yes, it is disruptive. Bludgeoning the process and gaming the system won't profit you. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Quoting AGF is not a suicide pact "quoting this essay is not a get-out-of-jail-free card". Bishonen, you are not following due process. If you want to convict me of violation of a policy you'll need to have evidence otherwise I will report you for abuse of administrator privileges. Ifdc (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking pointed questions and then refusing to answer the ones asked of you is shady. Point blank. Obsessively editing one article and having the types of round and round debates you have had with Hipal over a single article when you are a new editor- is questionable. And- you are flirting with WP:OWN and WP:3RR- so there are some policies for you. It is an admin's job to question things- and threatening an admin- is just a ridiculous thing to do. Especially when they have done nothing but ask the questions that everyone else is wondering. IF you are not a paid editor- why are you getting so defensive about being labeled as one so quickly? You know there is a very easy way to prove you don't have a COI with this subject? Walk away. Go edit something else for a while. Spread your enthusiasm over multiple articles. Because, see, if you really didn't have some important reason to be sooooooo focused on this one single article- you would do just that. Not get defensive when the obvious is pointed out- that you are taking this one article too much to heart. So.... You want to re-evaluate a bit? Maybe step back or find somewhere else to focus for a while? Or are you going to double down on all this and go for broke? Nightenbelle (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... you are actually stressing me out and making it un-fun to contribute Wikipedia:HUSH. To my knowledge I've answered every reasonable question. Also I don't think I've made the article worse, if you think so, please make changes to the article. I don't know why this entire few days I've gotten involved has been all about me being attacked for being "paid" or a "sock puppet" no wonder it's so rare to find a wikipedia editor in real life - feels like a hostile and stressful place - I thought it would be fun but like this it's not. I have been looking for other articles to contribute to but I haven't seen one yet that was as bad as Pena's was when I first saw it. I saw a list of articles that need attention and I will be looking through them. Please stop calling me paid/sock puppet Wikipedia:HUSH. Ifdc (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double down it is. Sigh. Best of luck then. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFG Please assume good faith. Ifdc (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me if you wish, Ifdc. I see you tried to take the situation to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, and they explained to you that they only do content, not conduct. If you want to complain about me, and/or other people, you can use WP:ANI; they do conduct, not content. Be aware that they also do boomerangs, though. Incidentally, you may want to stop saying Hipal violated 3RR; they didn't, as two of the diffs in your WP:ANEW report were consecutive, and thereby count as one revert. (When somebody "outdents", like above, it's better to follow their lead, not go back to the old indent.) Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

No actually I don't want confrontation so if we all agree let's put this behind us and move forward. Ifdc (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - discretionary sanctions apply to biographical information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been indefinitely partially blocked from Dan Peña and its talkpage for persistent tendentious and promotional editing, pointing to likely undisclosed conflict of interest. You're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 13 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry... why have I been blocked? You've accused me of a conflict of interest, I have none - you have not proven any of your claims and I have barely edited anything lately - I do not deserve to be blocked. The vast majority of my edits were well within all applicable guidelines - as I'm a new editor, I may have made a mistake or two but I am innocent of what I am being accused. I'd like another administrator to review my contributions to the article and see if they warrant the large amounts of accusations and hostility I've gotten back from User:Hipal and User:Bishonen. Ifdc (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry, despite your false claim to have no account. I have changed the block to indefinite and will block your other account from those two pages. Yamla (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (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.

Please provide diffs of "accusations and hostility". Please also tell what the source of your interest in the topic is. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that you stop accusing other editors of policy violations(many of which are dubious at best). 331dot (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Dan Peña while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that was not my intention. Ifdc (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]