User talk:WP Editor 2011
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Please see the discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables#WP:ERA
[edit]I've opened a discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables#WP:ERA concerning the use of era style in the article, and you are respectfully invited to join the discussion so that an agreement might be reached. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aoidh, I appreciate your attempts to stop this outrageous edit war. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
Previous blocks
[edit]Need I remind you that you've been blocked twice for editwarring over WP:ERA? You don't automatically get to make 3 reverts on the same issue. If you revert again I'll report you. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller, you were on the side of the original trouble-maker in the first edit war, so it's completely outrageous for you to come here and warn me like some kind of neutral authority figure.
- For the benefit of anyone reading this page in isolation (which is apparently how Dougweller likes people to read about disputes), here is my explanation of the issue repeated from Talk:Aesop's Fables:
- Dougweller, you lied in this edit summary and you had clearly seen the discussion here, with Aoidh insisting on the need for consensus before changing Aesop's Fables from the status quo to Mzilikazi's hijacked version. Therefore your edit was entirely inappropriate and for that reason I'm going to revert it. The block that you refer to was for using a 1-month-old consensus as the basis to protect an article from a gang of edit warriors. Whilst it's already fallacious due to the fact that it's entirely an ad hominem argument, it's even more dubious because you yourself are trying to use the discussion on this talk page as the basis to support Mzilikazi's illegal edits. If one reads the June 2012 discussion at Talk:Aesop, they'll see a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue. How is a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue justification for Mzilikazi's latest edit war when a 1-month-old consensus is apparently so worthless that I deserved to be blocked for implementing it?
- Besides, Talk:Aesop certainly wasn't the entire discussion; you're cherry-picking and you know it full well. In reality, Mzilikazi conceded defeat in the first edit war here, hence both Aesop and Aesop's Fables returned to their BC/AD state after 1.5 years of Mzilikazi bullying anyone who tried to undo his illegal changes. The status quo was protected for many months until Mzilikazi used his sock puppet Afkun to start a 2nd edit war 7 months later. Mzilikazi was the original and main trouble-maker on your side of the first edit war, Dougweller, so by completely ignoring his concession of defeat and cherry-picking evidence in an attempt to claim you won is outrageous and shows just how little value one should place on your thoughts here. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
January 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
WP Editor 2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an outrage and a disgrace. I have only been involved in the last few days of this 11-month dispute, so it makes no sense to blame the edit war on me. Mzilikazi openly admitted in numerous instances that he was changing the article, whereas I, along with Aoidh, Davidiad, 209.250.187.21, 76.174.12.68 and 128.240.225.122 were all seeking to protect the status quo from Mzilikazi's hijacking of the article. The status quo doesn't require consensus; it is the default state. Change requires consensus and Mzilikazi and his friends never even tried to discuss the matter, let alone establish consensus. The first discussion was started by Aoidh only two days ago and it has so far consisted only of an argument about how the first edit war ended. The so-called consensus referred to by Dougweller was in fact from the first edit war, not the second, and it was only a fraction of the discussion anyway. Furthermore, even if anyone did read that page in isolation like Dougweller insisted, they'd see that it was unresolved, with Dougweller and his friends making the laughably fallacious and tendentious claim that because there were more of them, they should automatically get their way without having to justify their case or convince anyone of it. Furthermore, Mzilikazi, Dougweller and Johnbod lost the first edit war and, as I've said before, Aesop's Fables stayed in the BC/AD state for 8 months following the end of that edit war and Aesop for 19 months. For them to cherry-pick bits and pieces of their failed edit war as justification for the second is downright idiotic and only a gullible moron would play along with it. Therefore it is clear that in this conflict, I never edited against consensus and I was, along with several other editors, in fact preserving the status quo from an attempt to ram through illegal changes that were being made with neither discussion nor consensus. Besides, the report that I made to the admistrators' noticeboard was about the recalcitrant trouble-makers Mzilikazi1939, Dougweller and Johnbod, not me. I deserve thanks and praise for making the considerable effort to bring these edit warriors to the attention of the authorities. I still haven't been awarded my purple barnstar for saving these two articles in the first edit war. Who is ever going to bother doing the administrators' job for them in the future with the knowledge that an incompetent moron of an administrator might stuff it up and punish the dutiful peacemaker instead of the rule-breaker? It's absolutely outrageous. You still haven't punished Mzilikazi1939 for his repeated canvassing. Regardless of whether I made personal attacks (which is an exaggeration at best) or which form Aesop and Aesop's Fables should take, canvassing is a serious breach of the rules and requires punishment. As I already explained in detail on Dougweller's talk page, Mzilikazi's actions are a clear-cut example of canvassing and he was already caught out doing it in his first edit war. You already failed in your duty by blocking me (which I trust will be corrected by an administrator with more sense) but to turn a blind eye to such an obvious, indisputable and repeated breach of the WP:CAN rule is reprehensible. He also escaped punishment so far for his sock-puppetry thanks to Dougweller deliberately confusing Callanecc. WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) Even if it were true that you had been involved only for a few days in a long-running edit war, that would not make edit warring somehow acceptable, or mean that it "makes no sense" to (as you put it) "blame" you for your part in the edit war. If you edit warred, then you edit warred, no matter what anyone else did. (2) It is not true that you have been involved only in the last few days. You have returned to an edit war which you had waged as far back as March 2012, as can be seen here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. (3) Contrary to what you think, there is no basis in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, accepted practice, or anywhere else that "status quo doesn't require consensus", and that therefore someone edit warring to restore what they have chosen to regard as the "status quo" is somehow exempt from the policy on edit warring. (4) Contrary to what you seem to think, if you keep reverting in an article then you are edit warring, no matter how convinced you are that your edits are "right". Indeed, in almost all edit wars, everyone involved is convinced that their edits are "right", so if the edit warring policy were changed to include an exemption for anyone believing they were right, then everyone would be allowed to edit war. (5) The whole tenor of your unblock request confirms what is already abundantly clear from your editing history: that your entire approach to anyone you disagree with is a battleground approach. Any unblock request expressed in those terms is highly unlikely to lead to being unblocked: on the contrary, it is confirmation that you should remain blocked. (6) You have been told that part of the reason for the block is personal attacks. Did you seriously imagine that continuing personal attacks in an unblock request was likely to lead to that block being lifted? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
As I said at the SPI this editor brought against Mzilikazi1939 was that what I'm seeing is a pattern of you telling people they shouldn't participate in a discussion about WP:ERA on the relevant talk pages because they've been canvassed, and bringing an SPI against someone else whose position you disagree with. I also seew an editor who uses edit summaries to mislead, eg at Europa Universalis IV your edit summary "improved wording"[7] removed the C.E. era style. With a few minor exceptions, all of your edits relate to changing BCE/CE edits to BC/AD (yes, I know you deny that saying all of your edits relate to grammar and spelling). Sometimes your changes are in line with WP:ERA, sometimes not, but they are one way and in this case made with a misleading edit summary as given your other edits that was clearly your purpose.
As for canvassing, you are using the charge to tell the editors who participated in the discussion at Talk:Aesop that their comments are "tainted" and that they shouldn't take part in any further discussions on the issue - I can't see where our guidelines prohibit them from taking part. As I replied to you before, the only editors who took part in the relevant discussion at Talk:Aesop#B/CE dates were either notified or knew about it already (you). The IPs and Nikopolis did not take part in the discussion - in fact they never seem to have posted to the talk page - I see you don't mention him this time but two other editors, but again they didn't take part in the discussion. Notifying editors who have taken part in that discussion about your actions seems appropriate to me. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- On the point of spelling and grammar, I consider CE to be a spelling/grammar issue. That's why I said what I did about all my edits relating to spelling and grammar. As for Europa Universalis (not that it's relevant here but I'll indulge you anyway), I think I did a pretty good job of improving what was a poorly worded sentence. When I removed CE, it was for the year 1821 and as we both know from the now familiar WP:ERA, 1821 is not meant to have either CE or AD, especially in the context of the Europa Universalis IV article, since it's already obvious that it's the 1821 from 2 centuries ago. I was acting entirely within the rules in that case.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC))
- Dougweller, your latest edit to Aesop is inappropriate. Just because I'm temporarily blocked doesn't mean you have consensus for your proposed change, although this is what you seem to be suggesting in the edit summary. What about Aoidh, Davidiad, 209.250.187.21, 76.174.12.68 and 128.240.225.122 for a start? They don't agree with your proposed change either so, regardless of what happens here, you won't have a free pass to do whatever you want. Without establishing consensus first, your change has no legitimacy. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC))
- Am I to believe you didn't actually read the blocking reason given at AN3, "one week for edit warring in both articles against consensus"? Those other editors didn't take part in the discussion at Talk:Aesop and so far as I can see none of them even ever edited that article except Davidiad and that wasn't about BCE - his edits on that issue were at Aesop's Fables, and my revert today was not at that article. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- No one discussed anything at Talk:Aesop. The only mention of the issue there is the discussion from the first edit war. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC))
- There wasn't a real 'first edit war' at Aesop (you reverted someone twice isn't much of an edit war), and the discussion there established consensus. Looks like your 2nd revert against consensus was ignored for some reason. But it was clearly discussed in 2012 even if not then permanently implemented. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I got my first block (i.e. not this one) for keeping an article in line with a consensus that was established one month beforehand but now you're using an unresolved discussion from 19 months ago as the entire basis for your changes to Aesop? That makes no sense. The reason Aesop used BC/AD for the last 19 months straight is not because nobody noticed my "revert against consensus", it was because Mzilikazi agreed on his talk page to stop changing the articles. All five of us had agreed (some of us implicitly rather than explicitly)to leave both articles alone and that is indeed what occurred for many months. By ignoring this commitment, you're the one breaching consensus, Dougweller. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC))
February 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)WP Editor 2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is even more outrageous and illegitimate than the first. You didn't even allow me to say anything; that alone makes this charade illegitimate and unacceptable. The whole essence of Dougweller's argument over the last few weeks has been that article talk pages can and should be viewed in isolation when addressing a dispute. Bbb23 and JamesBWatson agreed with him in this regard and that was the main basis for punishing me for the recent conflict that was started by Mzilikazi1939. Therefore my actions of yesterday constitute complete compliance with the rules and the comments from these two administrators. As was made crystal clear on Talk:Aesop yesterday, Mzilikazi and his friends never complied with the rules set out in WP:ERA in their latest attempt to change the article Aesop. I already tried merely correcting their illegal actions and explaining it in edit summaries and personal talk pages but they continued ramming through their illegal changes, so yesterday, even though corrections of rule breaches should not require discussion, I made the peace-making effort of explaining the matter on the talk page Talk:Aesop. I went above and beyond what was required in order to see a peaceful resolution to Mzilikazi's edit war and I fully complied with both the Wikipedia rules and the wishes of the two administrators who had judged on the issue. If I broke the rules by obeying those administrators then the first block was obviously not valid and therefore an indefinite block now is not allowed. In fact, any punishment now would not be allowed because the alleged rule breach was entirely due to the directions given by Bbb23 and JamesBWatson, i.e. that article talk pages, as asserted by Dougweller, are meant to be viewed in isolation from other talk pages. My peace-making efforts yesterday were most certainly not a "diatribe"; it was a clearly and thoughtfully written explanation of what the issue was, how Mzilikazi's actions breached the rules and even how to resolve the matter. Unlike what we've seen from Mzilikazi and Dougweller consistently, I included no personal attacks in my efforts of yesterday. Bb23 made the dubious accusation that I had used personal attacks in recent weeks but I reject that entirely; I never called anyone names and I never tried to rely on ad hominem arguments to "justify" my position, unlike what we've seen from Mzilikazi in particular. Yesterday's edit was completely free from personal attacks; that's undisputable. The very fact that Bbb23 would describe yesterday's tactful, eloquent, peace-making effort as "diatribe", an extremely strong word, is more than enough proof that he has strong feelings about the issue and, as per WP:INVOLVED is therefore ineligible to participate in an administrative capacity here. This is a breach of the same policy that User:EncycloPetey broke when he banned me years ago, causing him to be stripped of his administrator status. I was already wondering how Bbb23 could block me the first time with that non-sensical, contradictory excuse for an explanation. If article talk pages aren't meant to be viewed in isolation then both Aesop's Fables and Aesop are meant to be using the standard English style of dates. That is what I originally insisted but for that I was blocked by Bbb23. However, if, as asserted by Dougweller and agreed to in the rulings of Bbb23 and JamesBWatson, article talk pages are meant to be viewed in isolation then Aesop's Fables is a lost cause and Mzilikazi has got away with his change there but Aesop is still meant to remain in the BC/AD state. Yesterday's edit is in complete compliance with that ruling and I even made the additional effort of explaining it on the talk page to ensure that I could not be successfully accused of making trouble. For anyone who reads what I wrote at Talk:Aesop yesterday, there can be no doubt that not only did I comply with the rules yesterday, but I even went out of my way to work towards ending Mzilikazi's conflict peacefully and in accordance with the proper procedures.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 8:20 am, Yesterday (UTC+0))
Decline reason:
You were reblocked because you returned to revert-warring as soon as your block expired, despite a clear emergent consensus to move the article to Common Era dating. Your justification on the talkpage (personally I think "diatribe" sums it up pretty well) was based on a fundamentally flawed reading of the MOS, which had already been pointed out to you earlier, but even if it had been valid, Wikipedia's processes still require that the community accept your position before you go back to your preferred version of the article. Since you appear to understand neither the basic process of consensus, nor the policies against edit-warring, I am declining your appeal. Yunshui 雲水 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
WP Editor 2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's not at all true that there was "a clear emergent consensus to move [Aesop] to Common Era dating." Mzilikazi lied in that regard by claiming a fraction of a discussion from 20 months earlier as this so-called consensus. That fraction, if read in isolation like Dougweller and subsequently Bbb23 and JamesBWatson said it should be, was merely an unresolved argument in which the proponents of change refused to justify their change with any legitimate reasons (the main reason given was essentially "this is what we want and there are more of us so go away") and therefore it didn't proceed; the status quo remained.
If it wasn't enough for the change to proceed in May 2012 then it certainly wasn't enough to justify the change 20 months later, when Mzilikazi pretended he had won that argument and made the same illegal edit that he had made the first time. Look at Talk:Aesop; there was absolutely no mention of the issue between May 2012 and two days ago, so the article was certainly not allowed to change to CE when Mzilikazi started edit-warring in January 2014 and it still isn't allowed now because neither he nor any of his supporters have followed the procedure described in WP:ERA. WP:ERA says that consensus must be established in a section of the talk page entitled "Era" before the article changes its dating terminology. Mzilikazi said absolutely nothing on the talk page; he merely rammed through his illegal change with an edit war.
Preserving the status quo from the unauthorised changes of edit warriors most certainly doesn't require their permission or consensus; that is clearly never going to happen and it is completely farcical for you, Yunshui, to claim that such an unlikely situation is required by Wikipedia policy, let alone realistic. Undoing unauthorised changes is expected by the rules and this is exactly what I've been doing for the last few weeks. I would have much preferred if other responsible editors had done their bit instead of leaving it all to me but I reverted the illegal changes, I reported the trouble-makers to the authorities and I even started a discussion on the talk page, which was in fact the responsibility of Mzilikazi and his supporters but I did it anyway because I was determined to stop the damage being done by these recalcitrant edit warriors. I deserve thanks, praise and now an apology.
Mzilikazi and Dougweller between them have used sock puppetry, canvassing, ad hominem arguments and red herrings repeatedly; they have consistently defied logic and Wikipedia policy to the extent that such behaviour is their modus operandi. My block of 2 days ago only happened because Dougweller went to fetch his friend Bbb23 in private; there was no official notification or report and I was never invited to respond to any charge(s). It was entirely a cloak and dagger affair. Mzilikazi has never denied using a sock puppet and yet the multiple biased administrators who have read about it have refused to act on it.
I, on the other hand, have been the only one doing the right thing by (at least until today) refraining from personal attacks (contrary to the lies of Bbb23) and ensuring Mzilikazi and his supporters, who have delusions of article ownership, can not hijack the article in defiance of Wikipedia policy. Aoidh briefly joined in trying to stop their policy breaches but he cowardly jumped on their bandwagon after Bbb23 made the outrageous and unjustifiable decision to block me, the peacemaker. I was never supposed to be blocked on 30 January and I most certainly wasn't meant to be blocked on 16 February; this is a total disgrace. Encyclopetey was demoted from administratorship for abusing his powers in an edit war against me (and acting simlilarly on other occasions), so why are all of you administrators so scared of the misbehaving administrator Dougweller that you take his side at the expense of common sense, legitimacy and a humble Wikignome who just wants to protect the encyclopaedia? The administrator involvement in this issue so far has been an illegitimate charade with mates protecting mates rather than the encyclopaedia, which is supposed to be the reason for their powers.
I've clearly and repeatedly explained the situation but Bbb23 has now blocked me twice with only a handful of words each time. How is anyone expected to understand the justification for his improper actions? They're not; they're just meant to go along with it blindly. JamesBWatson then used red herrings, straw men, argument ad absurdium and possibly even straight-out lies to defend his decision. I despise repeating myself so this is the final time I'm going to respond to the matter of being blocked; I hope that this disgraceful series of events will finally be noticed by an administrator who isn't in cahoots with Dougweller and has some integrity. I know I've done the right thing all along and, if Dougweller is more intelligent than he lets on, he knows it too. WP Editor 2011 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You really need to read WP:GAB. Between WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NPA, there's no chance a request like this is going to be considered by another admin. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
- There was no need for an official warning or report after the earlier warnings and blocks, and far from going to Bbb23 privately I publicly asked him on his talk page what he thought of your edit.[8] That you see yourself as a peacemaker is fascinating. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, talk pages are the most private venue on Wikipedia. They're certainly much more private than the various administrators' noticeboards. That's why I referred to it as private. Why did you choose to go directly to him rather than making it official and taking pot luck? Surely it's because you knew you'd have a sympathetic ear. I call myself a peacemaker because I never set out to change anything; all I was doing was preserving. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC))
- No, talk pages are anything but private. If you have a talk page on your watchlist you can easily watch discussions, etc on other talk pages. Editors fairly frequently respond to posts to my talk page before I do. Vandalism gets caught by watching talk pages. They aren't private. Going to an editor who knows the situation and has blocked before is standard. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, talk pages are the most private venue on Wikipedia. They're certainly much more private than the various administrators' noticeboards. That's why I referred to it as private. Why did you choose to go directly to him rather than making it official and taking pot luck? Surely it's because you knew you'd have a sympathetic ear. I call myself a peacemaker because I never set out to change anything; all I was doing was preserving. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC))