User talk:PrBeacon

June + July 2009

Dispute with wiki-bully

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whale Wars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are over 3 reverts in one day on the article. Consider taking your concerns to the talkpage. Both warring editors are being warned. Terrillja talk 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Terrilja, Actually the dispute is over a related page, Sea Shepherd. Two weeks ago the other editor, Mr.NRen, quietly ammended "violent" in the middle of the group's Method: direct action (info-box). [1] Now, if it had been in the body text, no big deal  right. But that info box is fairly prominent. And apparently he made no attempt to discuss this change beforehand. Nonetheless, the archived record shows no clear consensus about hypernyms like violence and terrorism as they apply to SSCS, although Mr.NR shows his early bias there. (More on that later) Back to his POV edit: when another editor objected on the talk page a week later, Mr.NR quoted two ambiguous sources on what constitutes violence (in wikipedia and two dictionaries) -- saying "it's pretty clear" when, actually, it isn't. The primary definition of violence is force against people. Although the SSCS engages in violence against property, it is decidedly not against people. The page on direct action lists nonviolent and violent direct action. But it doesn't really list "violent direct action" as an accepted term/label, and that's where I think he took liberty in applying it to the SSCS. Unfortunately, I thought Mr.NR might be an honest sort of fellow interested in finding a compromise. Instead, he comes off patronizing and dismissive. Thus I made my second mistake in engaging his petty side. I've never claimed to be a saint. Now, I know some people are gonna say this is just semantics, but I dont think so. And I'm not alone, no matter how hard Mr.NR tries to ignore others. So I reverted his edit back to "direct action" which is consistent with other activists' pages on wikipedia -- see the list on the direct action page. Then the revert war started and I took the issue to Editor assistance for some third-party feedback. Yet there, I think, he distorts and personalizes the dispute. "bad faith" ad nauseum. He also seems to dominate the discussion instead of allowing others to weigh in first. And get this: he accuses me of bias yet he's the one who says things like "Balance is not the goal" when clearly it is a major tenet of wikipedia's policies [2]. He also talks about getting kicked off of other forums (which he has since removed from his talk page) and he repeatedly claims that the Sea Shepherds are "terrorists." [3] & [4] So there we have it. I hope this clarifies some things. If you have any questions please feel free to reply here. Thanks. ANI Discussion There is an discussion specifically regarding you at ANI Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thankyou for the notice. From what I've seen, it's more about him than me. Apparently he missed the ANI intro, "Please do not clutter this page with accusations" And thanks for replying there. Sadly, his skewed sense of persecution is getting worse. Some might even say he's a Wiki:Bully -- I stood up to him, now he's crying foul any way and anywhere he can. Since you got a good sense of the back&forth from his W.Aa, you might like to check out his earlier appeals at my E.a.r [5]. Cheers. Fhue (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Fhue (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Dispute I’ve notified a few editors who I’ve worked with and asked them to weigh in on the issue. [6][7][8][9][10] I believe the way I did so is within the rules (WP:CANVAS). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, and feel free to do so yourself (within the rules, of course). — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Fine. But should we really expect your friends to give you anything other than their subjective support? Odd how you can't quite seem to accept the feedback already given by administrative 3rd parties like User:Chamal_N, User:Mendaliv, User:Nerdseeksblonde, User:Excirial and User:Bwilkins, not to mention the localized discussion from User:Sugaar, User:Cptnono and others. By the way, your profanity [11] is not welcome here. Fhue (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC) My friends?? — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, I accept the feedback of the other editors; I just disagree with it. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Apparently you dont accept it. How many admins have told you to stop? But you won't get the last word here. Fhue (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) July 2009 Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive547. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Archives are just that: archives. They’re meant to keep a record of discussions that are now finished and are not meant to be edited. If you feel there is something unresolved in an archived discussion, the proper thing to do would be to ask an experienced editor or an admin about unarchiving it or starting a new discussion on the matter. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC) As i said in my edit summary, you are NOT admin. You have no right to lecture me or anyone else about this, so stop with your template warnings -- like [12] & [13] which i removed earlier but now want others to see -- and I've seen you do that to other editors you're hounding, as well, like this one removed by SlimVirgin. On the archived WQA, your "Incorrect.." reply in small font under Bwilkin's admin note is unacceptable -- and you know it or else you would complain more elsewhere. Fhue (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC) <NRen's subsequent replies [14] & [15] have been removed due to profanity & personal attacks -- as well as this ridiculous warning -- more evidence of his wiki-bullying.> No one needs to be an admin to be at ANI or to warn you for edit warring. Admins are just users with tools, that doesn't mean that they have more rights than others or that regular users have less. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC) True, but misleading. NRen2k5 is not objective in this dispute, therefore his warning is inappropriate. PrBeacon (talk)

Edit warring, username issue

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) If you still have things to say at the ANI thread, you need to either start a new thread, or move the whole thread out of the archive and back to ANI (you can do this by cutting the text out of the archive, saving, and re-pasting it back to the bottom of ANI, with an explanation in italics of why you moved it back out). You should not edit archived pages, that's a clear guideline; besides, no admins are reading the archive, so it's pointless. Once your block expires, please either let this ANI thread drop, or deal with it appropriately at ANI; do not keep modifying it in the archive. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Where is the "clear guideline" about not editing archives? I looked on the ANI pages, both active and archived, as well as the WP:Archive policy page. But I did find this: "administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." -- from Blocking policy - Education and warnings. Fhue (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC) You were well aware of the policy on edit warring and had ample time to stop warring before you were blocked. Again, you were not blocked for editing the archive, you were blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 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). PrBeacon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: As usual, NRen2k5 is overstating my role & understating his own. This dispute has escalated from article talk pages (on Sea Shepherd and Whale Wars to my WP:EAR, then his WP:WQA and WP:ANI, none of which delivered a favorable outcome to him, so he continues his wiki-bullying on my talk page and now here. The above revert-war is his attempt to get &keep the last word on that archive, yet nowhere there or on WP:Archive does it say new edits are not allowed. Furthermore, his last edit to it before it was archived is a blatant violation of standard format: his small reply to Bwilkin's admin note is misleading & redundant (pushing his POV in summary/admin format). Decline reason: This doesn't address the reason why you were blocked. Other users actions aren't an excuse for your own. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:10, 2 July 2009 (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:ARCHIVE is not the right page to be citing; it's a how-to guide for making archives, not a guideline about how archives should be kept. But it is well-known that you shouldn't modify discussions once they are in an archive. Furthermore, I see no evidence that NRen2k5 was doing anything incorrect before the page was archived; MiszaBot only archives ANI discussions many hours after the last comment there, so if NRen made any edits there you should have had ample time to respond to them before the archiving occurred. Furthermore, you haven't explained why you should be unblocked. Whether or not NRen was wrong in editing ANI or in "bullying" you, the fact of the matter is you were blatantly edit warring. Once things are reverted, you need to discuss things; reverting an article or an archive 6 or 7 times is not acceptable, no matter how "right" you are. If it were up to me I would decline your unblock request, but I'll leave it to the next passing admin to decide. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I don't live on wikipedia time, so 24 hours is not a reasonable delay to reply to something before it gets archived. More importantly, it seems like you have not actually seen his reply there -- his final edit [16] is in small text form at top in reply to admin Bwilkin's summary note. Fhue (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Somewhat OT: - to be completely fair, we both spammed up the dispute resolution discussions we started - and the ANI - pleading our cases and not really getting anywhere. I’d say neither of us made any egregious rule violations, but I wouldn’t say I didn’t do anything wrong. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC) So why doesn't NRen2k5 get blocked, too? Because he opened the ticket first? You (Rjanag) said as much on his talk page. He's been around longer and knows how to work the system, apparently. Fhue (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Who gets blocked and who doesn't isn't something you need to worry about; just worry about yourself. Someone else getting blocked wouldn't change the fact that you are blocked. The reason I didn't block him was because as far as I can tell he did try to have a discussion with you about why archives shouldn't be changed, and you just responded with an insult (again, people don't need to be admins to talk to you) and insisted on continuing the edit war. Once someone asks to discuss an edit, that's the time to stop reverting over it until a consensus is reached. Once your block expires I hope neither one of you will have a need to revert one another anymore. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) the diff you selected is not representative of the exchange. better examples: his profanity during the edit warring (and another example, earlier [17]) as well as his childish insults (and removing my words from my own talk page. in hindsight, of course, I agree that I should not have engaged in an edit war. at the time, i was frustrated by the lack of admin support [18] for removing his comment "Incorrect..." from the archive [19], and as I said I did not see any notice or policy about editing the ANI archive (other archive pages have the heading notice, why doesnt ANI?). furthermore, a warning from NRen2k5 is not the same as one coming from an admin or other user, because NRen is in the middle of the conflict. his POV on this dispute is biased. as i've shown here and elsewhere [20] & [21], he has a history of verbal abuse and wiki-bullying. Fhue (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) It's an archive, anything more shouldn't have to be said, you aren't allowed to remove things from an archive. Archives don't change, they are recorded history of that event. If you wish to take up the issue again, start a new topic about it. Furthermore, you are not allowed to refactor/remove another editor's comments, improper or not.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Secondly, we are within our full rights to warn you and lecture you about the rules. Or maybe I'm wrong. If so, do demonstrate where is says users are now allowed to warn others when they are violating the rules. To the contrary, it is suggested we do so.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC) You're repeating what others have already said, in general, and not addressing my specific points. I understand now about not editing all archives. Also, I understand that a warning from a 3rd party, whether admin or not, is fine. But given that NRen is a party to the dispute, his warnings are not objective. And if you notice, too, I heeded the first & only warning I've received from a 3rd party (Terrillja) [22], at the top of the page. Fhue (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC) 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). PrBeacon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Agreed, I understand what I was blocked for and I will stop modifying the ANI archive. However, in my defense I should say that I honestly did not know all archives should not be modified. While it may be "well-known" to veteran users, it is not explicitly stated on the page in question or the WP:Archive page. And I did not get a warning about this policy. The other editor NRen2k5 placed a warning about edit warring on my talk page but I disregarded it due to his conflict of interest. And so I thought he was making up a rule about new edits there, since he was engaged in the revert war, too, and has done so before. Lastly, my initial appeal above was incomplete -- it was originally my reply to the ANE section which the other editor started, but I got blocked before I could post it there. Decline reason: You should not have disregarded the warning and need to look at how you edit here. Also, you need to change your username - it is inappropriate, violating username policy. Toddst1 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (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. This account, PrBeacon, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy. This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it—see below. Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, misleading, or related to a 'real-world' group or organization. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions: Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can usually still edit your own talk page. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far more easily allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Alternatively, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier, especially if you have few or no edits. Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Another edit like this and you'll lose the privilege of editing this page to appeal your block (hint: change user name). Toddst1 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 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). PrBeacon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: My username is not innappropriate. The admin's interpretation of it is incorrect ("F you" on his talk page) because the "h" in "hue" is not silent. Decline reason: How you read it, maybe. But the key standard is not how you intend your username, but how it affects the ability of other editors to work with you. "F hue" sounds so much like "F you" that people are taking it as an insult, which makes it impossible to collaborate with you. Mangojuicetalk 18:47, 5 July 2009 (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. I would recommend against unblocking unless this user promises to leave archives alone.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I've already done so in my original request to be unblocked. "Agreed, I understand what I was blocked for and I will stop modifying the ANI archive."   Now I would include all archives in the promise. Fhue (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC) This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. PrBeacon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Requested username: Juancholo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Decline reason: So you are going to go from an offensive English name to an offensive Spanish name? No mi cholo, no este vez... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't know the term has offensive connotations since there are quite a few other users with the name. Yet you call me 'cholo' in the same breath. hmmm. ('Juancho' is a nickname in Mexico and i heard 'cholo' used jovially there as nomad, vagabond, trainhopper.) Fhue (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Actually I believe that 'cholo' is used as a racial pejorative. Crafty (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Cholo is one of those words that no English translation can adequately capture. It may not be the equivalent of the "n-word", but it is also almost universily used derogatively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC) for the record, i still disagree with your characterization of it. i maintain it can be used without derogatory connotation. PrBeacon (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change

width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to [[::User:Prbeacon|Prbeacon]] (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Request handled by: Closedmouth (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.	Thanks. Fhue (talk) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued editing with inappropriate username contravening purpose of unblock. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I don't understand what you have against me. I've applied for the name change but the process takes a week. Am I supposed to wait that long before I can start contributing again? Fhue (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC) You were expected to change your username before continuing editing. Now, you are required to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, that's clear. However, you didn't answer my question. Should I modify my name/sig to reflect the impending change? Perhaps something like this.. Fh..->Prbeacon (talk) You should sign your posts with your username - the only one you have at the moment. I'll unblock you if it would make you feel better, but you need to agree to wait until your name change comes through before you edit anything other than this page, your sandbox and pages related to your name change. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC) {{unblock|I believe this block is unjustified and the blocking admin may have a personal bias. I humbly request another admin to take an objective look at this case. I have applied for a name change in accordance with the original block for inappropriate name.}}	width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): This username is inappropriate, but it's not so inappropriate that using it for a few days while the usurpation request goes through will cause enough problems to make this block worth it. Request handled by: Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.	Thank you both, much appreciated. Fhue (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Actually I still cannot edit: "currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address" (my emphasis) Fhue (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) {{unblock|Could someone please remove the autoblock of my IP: "currently unable to edit .. due to an autoblock" ? I was unblocked but apparently there are remnants of the username-block still in the system. The blocking admin's Talk page says he is offline now for a week. Thanks}}	width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Cleared the autoblock Request handled by: Stephen 02:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.	Thanks again. Fhue (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Just to let you know, this latest block and unblock is up for discussion; I acted rather hastily in unblocking you and consensus might develop against it, in which case you might again restricted from editing until your rename is complete. If you were to pick a different username that didn't require WP:USURP, it might help moot the issue more quickly: I note, for instance, that user:PrBeacon is available. Mangojuicetalk 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Indeed, I'd thought of that after getting the 2nd block from Toddst1 but I had already put in the usurp request so i wasnt sure if i could cancel that. Now I will see if i can. WP:Changing_username request "Original name deemed inappropriate, 2nd choice Prbeacon taken but not active -- usurp request submitted, now advised to try this variation."   Cheers. Fhue (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherds and Violence

Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You may think differently after you read more of my replies to the anti-SSCS POV-pusher there, but I appreciate the comment. PrBeacon (talk)

I might regret this but get in here. Started poking around more recently and think your counterbalance would be beneficial to the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed NRen2k5's self-righteous warning from here. I also posted the following reply at his Talk page: "When you can heed your own advice about not personalizing disputes and distorting the truth, I'll stop countering your pro-whaling arguments. Until then, keep your hypocritical warnings to yourself." PrBeacon (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey.. it looks an aweful lot like you are egging Nren on in the discussion of SSCS. I know the two of you have history.. it's probably best if you don't spend effort discussing him in that page. Making suggestions of edits would be cool but it seems like you are commenting about the person which he seems to be taking offense to.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps thats one way of looking at it, but as long as he pushes his anti-SSCS POV there, I'll continue to reply. I think the discussion about balance in particular is well worth it. Incidentally, I must say your assessment seems injudicious in light of your own testy exchange with the anon-editor#4 allegedly from San Jose. PrBeacon (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem being disagreed with. :) I welcome it, it's good for us. San Jose though was just flat out rude, I tried not to be rude back. Look at CPTnono, obviously sympathetic to the SS but I've got nothing but praise for the way that editor handles business. If we disagree it's all good. Anyway, thanks for scaling back a bit, we all have folks that get under our skin. Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I am pretty sure we can find solutions on the range of articles. I have and will continue to disagree with you but me getting the page locked sucks. And there is no winning and I am not always right so there is nothing wrong with working to find some consensus on this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Against pro-whaling POV-pushers

For the record, User:Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and bypassing the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" as well as bogus research claims, while ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page and paying lip service to WP policies. Most recently, after I changed the terms back, he reverted my edits. So I warned him about 3RR [23] which he mistakenly thought was a formal report, yet he deleted it. He then retaliated at the Admin noticeboard. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution, he seems to be digging in & making things worse. (I write this here because he will most likely delete what I wrote on his talk page). PrBeacon (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He replied, unsurprisingly, with a rehash of false premises, non sequiturs and red herrings. Funniest of all is how he brought up that "which is not how disputes are resolved on Wikipedia"

How would you know "how disputes are resolved"? Apparently, policy pages are "arbitrary" and don't apply to you, talk pages are only there to support your worldview, archived discussions and related articles aren't worthy of consideration, and a common template warning is a "threat." PrBeacon (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We can play this game if you really want. Calling you a jerk was grossly inappropriate. However, you are guilty to a certain extent as well and ignored that on the user's talk page and mine. WP:AOBF is part of a guideline. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" is considered directly rude per the policy Wikipedia:Civility. Stop accusing someone of POV pushing. This is devolving into a lame pissing contest. You asked where my objectivity has gone and I am thinking the same of you. I hope it is just a knee-jerk reaction on my art. I am sure we can get back to not being rude to each other with a little bit of effort.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've conceded as much on his talk page and yours, just before he made the remark. But I never called him any names. Those quotes from wp:npa seem to support my view that I can indeed question an editor's contributions with some latitude, including POV issues. And you know from my exchanges that I'm civil until provoked, especially with NRen2k5 last year: I give what I get. If an editor wants to push the argument instead of reach common ground, I'm willing to return the flavor. Not the best response in an ideal community, but I don't back down from bullies. As I see the escalation: we discussed, he reverted, we argued, he reported, we argued, he insulted. And yes Cetamata seems to enjoy arguing, despite his claims to the contrary. PrBeacon (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note sure why this happened: [24]

Or the timing of this [25]-- self-righteous blowhard trying to bait another argument.

PrBeacon, what I think is happening is you’re losing your cool and antagonizing people again. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)