User talk:Canterbury Tail: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:13, 4 July 2010

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006

Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007

Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007

Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007

Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007

Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008

Archive 7 - 16 March 2008 - 31 August 2008

Archive 8 - 1 September 2008 - 26 January 2009

Archive 9 - 27 January 2009 - 13 September 2009

Archive 10 - 14 September 2009 - 21 January 2010

Archive 11 - 22 January 2010 - 29 June 2010

Block

The argument on the O'Neill pages is over what images to include, so all images were removed until an agreement could be reached. However, you blocked me for this, claiming I wanted an image-less version to be my version. Besides being ridiculous, you crossed a line by telling me what I want, as if you could know or as if you have been involved in the argument from the beginning and are aware of what is occurring. Please remove the images form the articles until a consensus is reached. I ask you do it, so you do not erroneously block someone again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I never got involved in your argument. I never told you anything you wanted. Please point out where I said such things, made such claims and told you what you want. I just warned you for edit warring, and blocked you when you continued to edit war over the topic. I have no feelings, or care, for what version people end up settling on, I just care about not having pages disrupted by continual edit warring between sides. I crossed no line, and I will not get involved in the content dispute in any way. I will however not hesitate to block for disruptive editing and edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the "revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring". That seems to be you telling me what I want. Now, if you took the time to read a little or go through the edits, you'd know the dispute is over which images to put in the article. I took out all images, theirs and mine, trying to deescalate the situation. You blocked me for this. Not because I was inserting disputed images, but because I was removing the disputed content. Now you simply appear partisan, blocking me for taking the middle ground and allowing the other editors to reinstate their version of the article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you were blocked for continuing to edit war over a topic. I don't know what you want, and I don't really care. That statement I made was a general statement to say that you don't edit war to get what you want. What you want is irrelevant to me, but edit warring is not the way to get it. If my block was unjustified then another admin would have overturned it, however as it is other admins agreed to it when you requested an unblock. It was not a partisan block, it was an administrative block to prevent further edit warring between yourself and the others. I don't care who edits what or for what content, as long as it has consensus. Remember Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert blocked. Any editing disruptiveness, no matter who perpetrates it, may result in a block. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not unblocked because the admin stated I was edit warring likewise, so I suppose you both did not read the discussions. I don't think you are understanding what I am telling you. I was not edit warring. I was removing all disputed content, theirs and mine. Edit warring would be putting what I want in over theirs, them putting theirs in over mine and this process continuing. I removed their content and my content. How is that an edit war? Is that not a middle ground? If not, what is? An argument was over what to include, there are two options, and so i removed both 'til a conclusion was reached. How was that inappropriate? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't read the discussions. I have no reason to read the discussions. You were continually reverting the other editors edits. They were warned, the same as you, but you then reverted again resulting in the block. The discussions are irrelevant to the edit warring. it doesn't matter what content you're restoring, adding etc, you kept reverting and were blocked for it. Not for what discussions you were having, not for what content you did or did not want, but continually reverting other editors. There is a 3 revert limit, you were warned, you continued to revert afterwards, you were blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate the 3rr policy, as I did not revert an article three times within a 24 hour period. I was not warring, I was trying to maintain the medium. Do not defend the block as if you were merely carrying out the 3rr policy, your warning itself states you will ignore policy and revert what you deem fit on your own accord. If you are going to revert what you deem fit according to your personal standards, then it may be germane to know what the issue is being discussed. So, again, if you do not mind, please remove the disputed material yourself, and please note in the comments for the edit that no images should be inserted into the article until the dispute is resolved. That would be the most effective way to end this for now. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your content dispute trailed across multiple articles, disruptive editing of multiple reversions on various different articles, all part of the same content dispute. You were warned about disruptive editing, as where the other users, you choose to ignore the warning by reverting again. 3RR is not a strict must be three reversions policy, disruptive editing, no matter the number of actual reversions, is the issue here. You were edit warring, as were the other users, you were warned to stop, you continued, you were blocked.

If you want some advice, stop concentrating on your block and instead concentrate on the various Wikiprojects or the talk pages for the various articles to build a consensus for your edits. Talk to other users and try to work with them, and they will work with you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not interested in the middle road? All or nothing? And what is wrong with the comment I made on the talk page? Are we supposed to pretend everyone knows everything? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned I have no idea what the dispute is about, and didn't read the talk page comments. As it's not reversion of vandalism it is a content dispute. There was disruptive editing going on that was threatening the stability of articles and that's when I came in. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening the stability of articles? What? Anyways, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a dispute before you block people in the future. You as an admin should be promoting neutrality, not one side of the dispute. Blocking me for supporting neutrality only makes you appear partisan. Especially since the editors in question have a history of coming to you for assistance in the past. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not supporting any side of the dispute. I warned people on all sides, and have no problems with blocking the other parties if they continued, but you kept edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is History2007, Scolaire and O Fenian opposing. It is myself, Malke2010, Surtsicna, Tamfang, 206.116.73.178 and Seven Letters in support. Also, the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology also stated the illustrations are legitimate heraldically. The consensus was to add the images, yet the three in opposition do not want to comply.

They went to one talk page, then another, to one notice board, then another, then a WikiProject, then another talk page all trying to find one discussion that would side with them. The have taken the argument personally, so they are not listening to other editors, the community nor the facts; they are simply looking for one page that they can claim out weighs the rest as they argue over policy and revert edits to stall until they can find what they need. They wanted a source, I provided it. They called for another, I provided that. They ignored the sources.

So, while they are persistent and reverting my edits and the edits of others earlier on before the supporters grew tired of it all, it is not an edit war as you continue to insist. Six against three, with a WikiProject on my side. My edits are not disruptive, but abiding by the consensus. The fact I was elimiateing the images was an attempt to calm down the opposition and alleviate some of the stress of the argument that continued despite the three being overridden. So what else was I supposed to do? Please, tell me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail talk , I think User:Xanderliptak doesn't understand the sequence of events that lead to the block. I don't think he's trying to be argumentative here, just pointing out that he saw editors shopping and beating the bushes for supportive arguments, and he gave up and withdrew the images to neutralize things.

User:Xanderliptak, it is clearly edit warring. You're trying to argue against obvious diffs here. The admin is right here. Your block was correct. I can understand where you would be confused about it. In looking across all the articles and the edits/reverts that took place, I don't see a gaggle of innocents editing there. Unfortunately, you didn't stop and that's edit warring. I know you did supply sources, as requested, and that you were ignored. But rest assured everybody sees that. Don't forget, that everybody watching sees all of it. Make sure what they see you doing from now on is within policy. It takes longer, but it works better, and then you won't have to walk the plank again anytime soon.Malke 2010 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought

Hi, Could I seek advice on how to deal with the Leo XIII situation? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple have commented at Leo XIII, but History2007 still dominates the argument posting a response to every comment and even interpreting what each posted comment means for his side. The conversation with History2007 is now going the way of requiring the Vatican to post on their website information, images and approval for him, History2007, to use to verify each and every coat of arms image on Wikipedia. This is getting a bit out of hand to require sovereign nations to post in accordance with one Wikipedia editor's standards. Please see the break and see what a Catholicism contributor commented. It was also agreed by myself and another editor that a compromise where the SVG image, being scalable and plain, would be best suited for small depictions, while the ornate version would be better suited for larger depictions. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to go higher. I'm not qualified to arbitrate this one. I suggest making a post on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents about this. Be as neutral as you can, make your point concisely and without too much comment on the other users. It does seem to me to be a case of I don't like it, but I'm not 100% sure. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor who refuses to engage

Could you please cast a cold eye over (what appears to me) the contentious editing pattern of User talk:MFIreland. One long-term editor has apparently quit contributing due to frustration. The drama has been steadily building for some time across a range of closely related articles. The individual concerned may genuinely not be aware that their 'style' is tendentious, as I believe them to be new here and not a re-incarnation. I'm getting to the stage of letting these articles spiral to the point where their content reflects the 'official version' per the Irish Defence Forces official website. I'm not in the habit of bleating to Admins. on content disputes; discussion at User Pages usually suffices, but the ed. in question does not reply. These articles could do with some neutral 'oversight'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it begins again...

As a contribuator to the issue can i being your attention to this: Ireland Collaboration - no need for the whole island. I stupidly listened to RA and decided to go the diplomatic route (as i prefer diplomacy) by going to collaboration rather than arbitration, however the same arguements have been given even though i have shown their holes - and thus given even more evidence which is even more "holey". As a contribuator to the wider issue i would like your contribuation on this. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 :A couple have commented at Leo XIII, but History2007 still dominates the argument posting a response to every comment and even interpreting what each posted comment means for his side.  The conversation with History2007 is now going the way of requiring the Vatican to post on their website information, images and approval for him, History2007, to use to verify each and every coat of arms image on Wikipedia.  This is getting a bit out of hand to require sovereign nations to post in accordance with one Wikipedia editor's standards.  Please see the [[Talk:Pope_Leo_XIII#Arbitration:_break|break]] and see what a Catholicism contributor commented.  It was also agreed by myself and another editor that a compromise where the SVG image, being scalable and plain, would be best suited for small depictions, while the ornate version would be better suited for larger depictions.  <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Xanderliptak|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''[tk]'''</span>]] [[User:Xanderliptak|<span style="color:black">XANDERLIPTAK</span>]]</span> 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
+::This needs to go higher. I'm not qualified to arbitrate this one. I suggest making a post on the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents]] about this. Be as neutral as you can, make your point concisely and without too much comment on the other users. It does seem to me to be a case of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like it]], but I'm not 100% sure. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<font color="Blue">'''Canterbury Tail'''</font>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 ==Editor who refuses to engage==