User talk:Morgajon

Hello, Morgajon, 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! QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Morgajon. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any conflicts of interest wrt Oasis or their tour. I find the accusation frankly ridiculous. As if Oasis needs Wikipedia to promote themselves. Their tickets sold out in minutes FFS. Morgajon (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Shaneapickle (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Morgajon,

I just wanted to say I'm sorry for the harsh welcome you received to the world of Wikipedia. I'd like to say that this treatment was unusual but, unfortunately, it isn't. I just want to explain how rare it is for an account that is only a few hours old to find their way to ITN. I mean, I've been editing here for 13 years and I've never posted a comment at ITN. It's a niche of a niche.

So, here you are, a brand new account, coming in, very excited about something and the regulars who work there every day can only process it by assuming that you are here for the wrong reasons. No, it doesn't make logical sense but we see a lot of new editors and you are not acting like one of the new editors would typically behave. Sorry, if that ambiguity came out as hostility and noticeboard reports and suspicions of sockpuppetry. If you stick around and get used to, say, editing articles about music and working with other editors in our Music WikiProjects, I'm sure you will find some like minds. But that's not how things happened today and I wouldn't be surprised if you left. But if you want to do more on this collaborative editing project, let me know and I'll try to give advice depending on what your interest is. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite pleased that it was only a tiny minority who chose to accuse me of being a paid shill or otherwise suspiciously focused on one thing as a newcomer. I was more upset at the general lack of engagement on the facts, and the apparent presence of an unspoken rule that bars commercial events like concerts from ITN entirely. Something that no newcomer could possibly be aware of. But thanks for the note, much appreciated. Morgajon (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Morgajon, I accused you of being a "paid shill" because your first edits were to the Oasis tour and the ITN candidates page, pretty indicative of being a paid shill, it was suspicious that you knew too much about wikipedia on the first day of being here. Shaneapickle (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shaneapickle You know that ITN candidate page is directly linked from the Main Page right? The "Nominate an article" part are even in bold font. Doesn't take a genius (or a shill) to find this link in seconds. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually have rules. We actually have a pseudo-rule that says exactly that. Even our explanation of our policies admits that the policy pages are not canonical. What we do have are norms, and a lot of the "regulars" here tend to take those norms as a given, and think that if you don't guess those rules on your own you must be up to no good. For people who are new here, and are in the minority who actually read our rules (as we constantly beg y'all to do), and then see that those rules are very much subservient to the whims of a marginal majority of more experienced community members on any given page, it can be frustrating, like you're being lied to. And it's easy to get upset by what seems like (and maybe is) hypocrisy or arbitrary decisionmaking.

The four most common solutions to this problem are:

• The Machiavellian approach: Lurk quietly, avoid contentious subjects, and build up experience as you come to both internalize these norms and acquire social capital of your own to bend how the norms are applied.
• The DGAF approach: Do whatever the fuck you want and, if conflict arises, just walk away and drop whatever you're doing.
• The meteor approach: Edit brilliantly and loudly until you're eventually banned for disagreeing with the wisdom of the crowds one time too many.
• The RightToLeave approach: Don't edit.

The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia and my essay "On the backrooms" may also be of some use. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

What a sad indictment of Wikipedia. Amateur doesn't have to mean unprofessional. But here, it clearly does.

To be more accurate though, and risk even more people burning me as a witch for having the brains he was born with and the education and training his schooling and trade gave him, based on your first line, yes Wikipedia doesn't have any firm rules. But if you don't have a very good reason for ignoring one of the existing rules, you're not following one of Wikipedia's most fundamental rules.

I doubt most of my critics even have the first clue what I am talking about. What that most important rule is. Screw them, I say. Let them be ignorant of the most important aspect of their chosen hobby. Horses and water.

And the ones that do, are clearly so threatened by the fact I'm already far more capable of articulating Wikipedia's basic concepts (PAG, NOTNEWS, CONSENSUS, NPOV, PROMO) and applying them to real situations where actual harm is being done to it by its own allegedly far more experienced editors, they just want to shut me up. By whatever means necessary. It's sad. Morgajon (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I still agree with the underlying thesis of your argument, and I have been saying the same thing about ITN for a couple years now. I also agree that the block was necessary because you ignored WP:CIV, which is at least as important than the policies you listed, and showed no sign that you were going to begin following it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That of course being the same policy that saw nothing happen to the person who, when telling me they were reporting my incivility, also told me to grow up. Just one of many examples of why Wikipedia is dreaming if it thinks smart, capable people are clamouring to be a part of this. This haven for hypocrites and the blatantly dishonest. Simply by never answering a straight question with a straight answer, the very heart of incivil conduct, CoffeeCrumbs has got exactly what they were originally hoping for. Well done to him. Morgajon (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

They were asked to stop making these accusations, and they did. You were asked you to stop making them, and you doubled down. If you're as observant and capable as you're (rather rudely) boasting about, you should be able to digest law of holes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall Kingsif being told to not tell people to grow up when he's informing them of CIV. You're probably thinking of Shaneapickle. The less said about how long it took to get him to stop accusing me of being a paid editor, the better. It seems to me that had I dared to proactively report him, on the basis it was blindingly obvious from a cursory read of PAID or COI he was talking out of his backside, I would have been punished for talking out of turn and not respecting my betters. This place is a joke all round. Totally lacking in even an iota of professionalism. You would never get away with it in the many real world organisations where people do fantastic charitable works as volunteers. Wikipedia is technically a charity too, is the scary part. Morgajon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is hunting you for being expressly aware of how intelligent and trained you are in other stuff. If you want to look down on the editing masses, feel free, but it's not going to end well. Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a single thing in the ITN nomination process that is different from my day job. I am paid to follow editorial policies, work with others and know how to handle things like subjectivity. We practice consensus based decision making everyday. With one crucial difference. What I am not obligated to do in my day job, is accept the Emperor has no clothes. Not even if the Boss himself is the speaker (he will sometimes say something that is total bollocks just to see if his workforce are still intelligent and willing to call out bollocks). People like CoffeeCrumbs seem to think I should tolerate bollocks, especially if everyone around me is staying silent (thanks to the tiny minority of Black Kite et al for not doing so). Good luck to them all. I'll still have my job tomorrow. But you're going to be sitting around hoping there really is actually at least one other person around here who wants to update the Oasis article about current events while they're still actually current. Or maybe you don't. You of course know the purpose of Wikipedia better than I, with my simple reading skills. All I know is that some fool designed this place to be instantly updateable, and was presumably the same person who, after Wikipedia's growing pains, said such updates should only be done when reliable sources are available. Which must be why some other fool later said part of Wikipedia, the Main Page no less, should specifically be devoted to displaying suitably updated articles of wide interest covering current events, to showcase one of the best things about Wikipedia. I wonder what they make of the ignorant people whose entire knowledge of Wikipedia seems to be the capacity to parrot stock phrases like "Wikipedia is not news". Well done them. I can disturb them no more. They are safe from my "hostility". Morgajon (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Dare I try one last time to explain the real difference, in a way you might understand?

A newspaper's accountability is rules-based. You have editorial guidelines, you follow them to an established precedent of the letter, and if you mess up you can point to following the rules as an excuse.

Wikipedia's accountability is reasoning-based, and far less serious. Decisions on what is edited and posted are upheld based on community consensus of the most convincing argument, with guidelines a reference but reasoning prime. If you mess up, you can discuss it and change something, or not - previous decisions can be overturned or upheld in a non-specific timeline.

Perhaps you'd call it chaotic but, no, ITN's process is incredibly different to the editorial rigmarole of even semi-professional journalism. I promise you nobody is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, but even with guidelines in mind Wikipedia is much less boardroom and much more hippy circle in decisions. We answer to the readers (metaphorically), not an editorial board, so *shrugs* Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like no newsroom I ever heard of. Morgajon (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 20:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

While your last comment was the final straw, your conduct toward your fellow editors has been subpar since you began editing and needs to stop. When the block expires, please revist how you communicate with others. Star Mississippi 20:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

See above. How apt that you were preparing to do this while I was composing that message. I hope Wikipedia will now be forever safe from me exercising my right to point out when someone has made an error, or has shown no respect for my right to be given complete answers that are actually relevant to the dispute, rather than hiding behind a collective disapproval of my behaviour. Because I will obviously emerge from this experience thoroughly convinced that CoffeeCrumbs et al are always right about everything, and my employer is a complete and total fool for trusting me to be able to follow all company policies. But since he has a Knighthood for services to journalism, he does tend to favour those who are right when it comes to editorial policy, and certainly treats complaints of hostility from those who were wrong, with the due weight they deserve. But with Wikipedia having no mechanism to reward editorial competence or even say who was right and wrong, I guess they found a different way to make people feel valued. By identifying and removing high functioning people as threats to the apparently long established but entirely undocumented ways of doing things. Morgajon (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You have no "rights" on Wikipedia. You have privileges granted to you by the WMF, and privileges granted to you by policies and guidelines established by the community. When you act in a manner contrary to those policies and guidelines, which you have, those privileges get taken away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you telling me something I obviously already knew?

You are a Wikipedia Administrator. You're supposed to be capable of realising that if someone is talking about stuff like NOT, NPOV/BIAS, COI/PROMO, CONSENSUS and ITNSIGNIF, then even if you think all of it was complete nonsense (and I bet you do, you strike me as that sort), you should be able to at least infer they have picked up on the whole rights/privelages thing.

Sorry to tell you how to do your job. Please don't get offended or see this as hostile. And for the avoidance of doubt, I did not use "job" there in the literal sense. I understand you are not paid. You are doing your best, of that I am quite sure. Morgajon (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from ITN for a period of six months. Appealing this community-imposed topic ban can be done following the procedures detailed at WP:UNBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

As if I care. Morgajon (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Judging by your reply, you clearly do. Besides, there isn't anything else I can add but to advise you of the first law of holes - stop digging. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I. Do. Not. Care.

Bushranger has twice told me things I already knew, which he should have known I knew, then ignored my replies, happily watching from the sidelines as this behaviour from himself and others repeatedly got under my skin, and was then Jonny on the spot when it came to formalising a ban for letting it get under my skin. Morgajon (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Admins are not mind readers, and through your own actions it was not evident that you already knew these things, given your actions and statments were those of someone who did not. That - as I explained before in my last post you removed, is, in fact, the "why I did it" - because you have demonstrated that you are not compatible with a collaborative project, and you have only your own actions to blame for that. Good day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, because when I went into some detail with Masem, explaining that I do actually know concepts such as promotion, neutrality, weighting sources and what that means for attribution, and for the purpose of ITNSIGNIF, that just as for bias etc, you need to consider the type, topic, number and peristence and depth of the source, to asses both reliability and subjective importance, I was talking out my backside.

You're full of it. No sane rationale person would appear compatible to this ao called community, if they had the normal expected reactions to people continually patronising them in reply with the most basic and obvious simple parroted phrases, such as "Wikipedia is not a newspaper".

People like me, intelligent people, paid for exactly this kind of work, have every right to get angry, on the third or fourth attempt to educate these utter morons that in certain cases, notably ITN, the function of Wikipedia is very similar to a newspaper. The literal act of updating articles on current events in a timely manner.

But hey, you go off and ignore all this inconvenient evidence that proves without doubt that you're lying, and deliberately, given none of this would be new to you if you had actually been paying attention to the dispute. You're a credit to the title, Wikipedia Administrator. I'll make sure the world recognises your brilliance in due course.

And that contrary to your simple phraseology, in many different areas, the rank mistreatment of just one willing and capable editor, does mean that Wikipedia doesn't function, because information doesn't get added that should be.

Not even over your deliberately imprecise timeeframe of "eventually". I am already seeing the gaps. Nuggets of worthwhile information on the Oasis Live '25 Tour are sliding out of view, under the tide of all the other non-encyclopedoc coverage it is getting. Because....

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a promotional site or a concert tour guide. Duh. I did not learn that from your simpleton cohort's patronising loops of repetition, I had already studied the manual and processed the words in my skull. Sorry that makes you mad, but some of us are that capable.

But you don't care, because since when has your performance as an Administrator, or even just a human being here, ever been judged against metrics such as that. How many editors never come back after a single infuriating encounter with you and your ill advised, poorly researched, emotionally derived snap judgements.

Your performance is judged in entirely different ways as I now realise with Tamzin's help. That's the unique and probably quite unwise feature of Wikipedia that I've had understandable difficulties with. The way it differs from pretty much every other professional and amateur setting.

More suitable for a high school, and even that gives it too much credit. Many good works of public benefit are produced in high schools. And many people, including me, got their first taste of their future trade, at high school. Morgajon (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)