User talk:Rhobabwe

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

January 2025

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chris Hipkins have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Chris Hipkins was changed by Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87823 on 2025-01-08T09:20:18+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm IdiotSavant. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chris Hipkins seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I've made sure there is removal of all writings that are less than neutral. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content of your user page, because Wikipedia is not a webhost. Please do not recreate such material.-Gadfium (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's my user page. Who cares what is on it. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to create a political party in South Africa next. Want to come get me? Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to be creating fantasy material on your user page. This material uses the names of living people and is therefore a violation of WP:BLP as well as violating our policy as linked above. Please consider this a second formal warning, and be aware that you may be blocked from editing if you continue.-Gadfium (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that you have twice moved the page Te Whatu Ora to Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora, indicating in the first edit summary that was a technical move requested at WP:RM/TR, but the link in your edit summary did not support that. Another editor could not find any mention of this at WP:RM/TR. Please link to the request you acted on, or explain why you posted that edit summary.-Gadfium (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the name of the page to be incorrect and therefore changed it to be correct. I did fail to think about the talk pages and whether I should say anything or not. I chose not to and this was a mistake that has caused me some reflection. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to White Zimbabweans appear to have recycled existing sources which do not support the material you added. This is adding up to you being WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia.-Gadfium (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go fuck yourself you entitled shit. I improved the white zimbabweans page and only renamed Health NZ to what it actually is called. Who would be so obsessed to come after an individual on wiki... I mean please. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for this hot-headed comment. I am currently under too much stress and that response was on a bad day which doesn't excuse the behavior but may explain it. Again, I apologise. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Te Whatu Ora. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. As there have been several discussions before, this move should not be done unilaterally, but through a formal move request. You should also not make a move again if someone reverts it, as per WP:BRD. Turnagra (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Te Whatu Ora. . If you want it moved to a more convoluted title, go and make your case on the Talk page. Move warring is no better than edit warring and WILL get you blocked if you continue. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I handled this poorly and without consulting the talk page. It was wrong of me and I apologise. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 29 January 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a retaliation from the edit to Health NZ and is completely unreasonable, Health New Zealand is known by both names hence the page title should reflect this. That is completely fair.Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked as retaliation for anything, you are blocked in response to ample signs that you are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. If you want to be unblocked, you will have to address that. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2025 (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.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I therefore believe that my position is correct although I accept in my ignorance I may not have handled the situation in accordance with procedure and for this I apologise. However a total ban is completely out of line and a gross overreaction. I'm passionate but not ill-informed. Also this ban is against our family's whole computer which has made my brother furious as he is blocked too. That is unfair, you should only impose the ban on my account. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why my block was imposed and how some could perceive me to be little more than a nuisance. I haven't complied with some procedures when making edits, especially to the Health NZ page title. I will adhere to all rules and stay within the guidelines of editing content appropriately. I acknowledge I have handled some situations poorly and I apologise. It will not happen again in future under any circumstances. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2025 (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. Yamla (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2025 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge I have breached the rules on some editing and there are concerns I am not here to make a genuine contribution to the encyclopedia. I will not deface, vandalize, or cause any disruption. Instead I will make meaningful contributions that are accurate and useful. I understand why I was blocked and will be on my best behavior therefore it is no longer necessary to block me. I will not misuse Wikipedia again. Apologies. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I understand that it may be frustrating to have another request declined, but this is really light on details. "I understand and won't do it again" falls a bit short on actually demonstrating an understanding of the issues that led to the block. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 19:16, 3 February 2025 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I don't feel I've been understood or perhaps I don't understand. Listen, I see that my username was described as being a red flag by another user -IncidentArchive1177 which is a personal character defamatory remark. I am more reasonable than it may appear. I should say, I'm schizophrenic with manic depression and this affects my behavior. If there is NO way possible to convince anyone I am worth a second chance I shall accept defeat but I do ask you please not level against the IP address as this PC is shared and my brother has an account which is also affected. I don't want my actions to affect him. I know my Health NZ page title edits were the final straw and I should never have done it. I would guarantee my best behavior if I could be unblocked or even put on a form of parole if wiki has one. Please advise Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you on a WP:ROPE basis. My recommendation (not requirement) is that you change your username. Also, you should understand that any further violations will result in an immediate re-block without further notice. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you await the decision of administrators, here is an essay that you might find insightful: User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I tried to express when declining your last request is that "I understand and won't do it again" is not particualrly compelling unless you are also clearly stating your own understanding of why you were blocked, and I'm just not seeing that. If it isn't clear that you understand the reasons for the block, then it is likely the same issues will recur if you are unblocked, which isn't to anyone's benefit. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 19:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the username comment: I'm assuming they were referencing the fact that Rhodesia became Zimbabwe only after a fifteen-year-long war that was mainly fought along racial lines, so including the former colonial name may be a little off-putting to some people, even if it was briefly known by both names. I wouldn't say it is a blatant violation of the username policy, but it is possibly a little insensitive. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: @Beeblebrox: @Yamla: - how do you feel about an unblock on a WP:ROPE basis? PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, but I'd recommend (not require) Zimbabwe-Rhodesia change their username, and would warn them that any further violations would result in an immediate reblock without further notice. --Yamla (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object either. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 17:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, per Yamla. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that they learn more of WP's norms before resuming editing.

I personally have no issue with the username. I think it was seen as a sign of the user's political interests, but that's ok as long as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is followed. Nurg (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to be a responsible, civilised user. Yes the username is a reference to my heritage as I was born in Zimbabwe and my parents are of the Rhodesian era. I didn't realise some might find offence with it. I shall need to consider changing the name. Again, many thanks and sincere apologies. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger, Beeblebrox, Yamla: This editor has requested a rename to "Rhobabwe". I admit I'm not familiar with the geopolitics here, but I'm not sure that that's meaningfully better. Feel free to comment at meta:Meta:GlobalRenameQueue/Notes/138952 --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is less obvious. Most people have begun to forget Rhodesia however some still find it controversial and I didn't want to cause any trouble. Rhobabwe is a nick-name only older Zimbabweans would recognise. It's a friendly term used circa 1980 - 2000. It's a portmanteau word. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's policy-breaking in any way, but it's also seemingly not an improvement in any way. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was a country that existed for 10 months and was nicknamed "Rhobabwe". It's essentially just a synonym for your current username, which again, isn't policy-breaking, it's just no less insensitive than your current name. I would've included this comment on the meta page, but the reply function kicked me out. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Zimbabwe and nobody here would be offended by the word Rhobabwe. Ultimately, I feel that if it isn't offensive to the people who live in said place then it is not insensitive. Literally no one else has a problem with it. Rhobabwe (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I'm still blocked and it might be my IP address. Could someone please check this out as I was unblocked only two days ago. Thanks Rhobabwe (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Yeah, your range got checkuser-blocked when you started socking. I've unblocked it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Zealand First. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -Gadfium (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have publicly invited the other party to discuss our points with each other and the wider community. Awaiting their move. Rhobabwe (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is going for consensus now, might I suggest it be fair to issue this warning to GlowstoneUnknown too. We are equally guilty of allowing it to happen. Rhobabwe (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far too early for arbitration

[edit]

In response to your request for arbitration, it is clear that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PLease help me out here, I'm so overwhelmed and confused how this could've happened. Please! Rhobabwe (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? Rhobabwe (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Myself and another user unintentionally ended up in a confusion over formatting of an infobox. We both had points and I attempted to make contact so we could discuss the matter however he was slow in his single, aggressive response and I found myself unsure where to go to sort the issue incl arbitration. If the other user GlowstoneUnknown is also banned then I can understand but from what I can see he is not. Consensus was never reached and all attempts made by myself to resolve the disagreement were fruitless. I believe the ban is unjust in this instance and would still like to have a moderated meeting with user GlowstoneUnknown to resolve in good faith. Rhobabwe (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me you now understand how to resolve conflicts. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2025 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Upon reflection. This situation has shown me the appropriate ways to resolve a disagreement, and I took too long to engage in those processes. In the future, if I find myself in a similar situation, I will approach things differently, such as using a talk page, seeking a consensus, and having a faith discussion. I will also familiarise myself better with wikipedia processes. Rhobabwe (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am uncomfortable with giving you the impression an immediate unblock is likely. I suggest you edit other Wikimedia projects for 6 months and then re-apply. Anyway, regarding your unblock request, you can use your time unblocked to familiarize yourself with the dispute resolution process. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2025 (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.