User talk:StillStanding-247

Final Warning

This is your final warning on articles related to the 2012 Presidential Campaign. You are currently engaged in an edit war. This content was removed and then restored, then removed and you restored. If I see you edit warring anymore, I will ban you from Paul Ryan.--v/r - TP 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis, what you're saying is that I restored this exactly once. In the meantime, I commented on the talk page section five times, including once with a list of supporting citations. I'm sorry, but this does not look like edit-warring to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm noticing that you didn't give anyone else a warning. You did post a notice on Arzel's page, but it explicitly stated that he's not being accused of anything. I find your behavior hard to explain. In particular, why are you singling me out of special, harsh treatment? Aren't you supposed to be impartial? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring in tandem with others. You can be blocked or banned all the same; do not take my warning for granted. The requirement of the article probation is that the editor must have been informed of the terms before sanctions. Arzel and North8000 were, therefore, informed. You've been informed already. This warning covers all topics under the article probation. If I see you engaged in edit warring anywhere, I will topic ban you from the whole lot of them.--v/r - TP 02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case I'll curse you out and delete my account. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"In tandem with others" would imply a conspiracy of some sort to forego the rules and do damage to the encyclopedia. Is there clear verifiable evidence of a cabal or a tag team? Have they (Arzel, North8000, Still24/7, and un-named others) negotiated amongst themselves as to a "plan of attack"? Or is it just a case of similar-minded editors working independantley for the good of the article (as they see it of course)? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I acted independently. I can't speak for others. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It does not matter whether the edit warring is in tandem, or independent. It's disruptive, and the article is subject to general sanctions. Even a single revert can be edit warring, per WP:3RR. And it should be pretty obvious that if content is being added, reverted, re-added, re-removed, that being involved in the re-adding or reverting of that content is very obviously edit warring, even for a single revert. The process is BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRD as long as the R's are being done by different people. Common sense guys. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, ok, so would you agree to a 1RR restriction. A 1RR restriction would allow you to edit the articles, but not making revert after revert. The reverts do seem disruptive, and should be stopped. So remember WP:BRD. Follow that and there is no need for 3 reverts, or even 2. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the articles are already under community sanctions, 1RR for all is probably what is already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not officially, although I did limit myself to 1RR in this case and was nonetheless threatened with a fatal topic ban that would have ended my Wikipedia career. The truth is that 1RR, combined with the broadness of what counts as a revert, makes it really hard to edit at all. You're pretty much stuck with one edit per day, just to avoid the risk of instant death. In short, forcing 1RR on just me would be a terrible idea.

In response to what Swatjester said, I generally agree, but the case here is BRDRRDRRDRRD, where the result of the discussion is tendentiously ignored by those who oppose the B, and they therefore keep reverting to remove it no matter what the consensus of the discussion turns out to be. The B is invariably some well-sourced, entirely relevant passage that has the unavoidable consequence of not putting the subject in the best light, and there are people who think WP:UNDUE doesn't apply if the majority view doesn't happen to suit them. They either don't participate in the discussion at all or participate only to stonewall. These whitewashers are the real problem and they're the ones who need to be threatened, not me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned that TParis is showing less than a fair measure of objectivity. The events here have confirmed it. If he topic bans me, rather than quitting Wikipedia, I will go over his head. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis singling me out.

TParis has been singling me out with regard to the community probation of election-related articles. He has threatened to ban me just because I reverted exactly once after long discussion. If he were consistent, he'd have to ban half the editors involved, but he's no being consistent at all. I asked him[1] to lay out his requirements up front so that it's possible to follow them, but he refuses. In short, what's going to happen is that I do something reasonable that plenty of other editors do without anyone complaining but TParis will single me out and ban me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may attempt to impart a clue here: sparring with TParis is not going to get you anywhere other than the business end of a banhammer. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kerfuffler is right. Just drop it and forget it. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why TParis needs to lose the admin rights. Over zealous, biased and if you dare criticize him the hammer of thor comes out. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on that, except to say that the one requirement that all admins must have is thick skin. They should be able to accept criticism without taking it personally, much less threatening to retaliate. This one takes things personally, he threatens to retaliate, he singles out those who annoy him. And that's why I'm complaining: he's not doing his job, just threatening mine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, you can see where I in fact walked away. I took a quick peek just now, and it's clear that nothing he said after that in any way addressed my point; instead, he threatened me for asking him to stop being ambiguous. The unaddressed point is that he had so broadly interpreted edit-warring (1RR after discussion) that everyone was guilty, then selectively chose to threaten me but not anyone else who'd reverted it at some point that day. The end result is that, instead of specifying what is acceptable so that we can voluntarily stay within those lines, he's keeping his requirements secret so that he can arbitrarily enforce them. I fully expect that he will live up to his track record of special treatment by topic banning me essentially at random for things that nobody else is getting topic banned for. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some discussions where you just have to walk away. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. This is the part where you fold 'em. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you could actualy take that advice yourself.....it would be super!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And, what part of the midwest are you from? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

More advice (sorry)

Hey, I was going to try to avoid bugging you again with more advice, but I saw the hullabaloo on TParis's talk page and checked your recent edit history again. On the bright side, you seem to have improved since last we talked, but there are still some problems I'd like to address. The first is creating a section named Failure to BRD by Belchfire on an article talk page. While I am no fan of Belchfire, his techniques, or his foul language, I have to say that making a section title accusing another editor is inappropriate. Second: When Little Green Rosetta pointed out that you too fail to follow BRD, you freaked out, hatting his comment twice [2] [3], confronting him on his talk page [4], and requesting that he redact it [5]. (Incidentally, in the past three days you have failed to follow BRD at least 4 times by my count. I can provide diffs at your request.)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Anyway, I'm going to share something with you that has helped me a lot when I'm involved in conflicts. It's Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Basically the higher up the pyramid you go, the better your argument. Most of the arguments I've seen from you tend to be from the bottom four rungs on the pyramid. For instance, when TParis gave you the "final warning" you responded by accusing him of being biased. That's Ad Hominem and name-calling. The same goes for accusing people you disagree with of "conservative bias" and such. Labeling someone as an edit warrior is also name calling. (Off-hand remarks about Wikiproject:Conservatism are a Red herring, which is not on this chart.) You also frequently respond to the tone of an argument, raising Cain over anything you perceive to be a personal attack.

My advice is: Stay in the top three rungs of the pyramid. Ignore the tone and the characteristics of your opponent and focus on the substance of the argument itself. If somebody says something that sounds like a personal attack, ignore it. It will only reflect badly on them. If an admin threatens you with a block, don't attack them; adjust your behavior. To sum it up, if you want to actually "win" arguments, stick to the top 2 or 3 rungs. If you enjoy useless bickering, making enemies, and having to edit war to win disputes, stick to the bottom 3 rungs.

Anyway, there's my advice. As always, you're under no obligation to take it or leave it. Your editing today was much better than your editing 3 days ago, so keep up the good work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I've removed the "by Belchfire" from "Failure to BRD by Belchfire".
2. He falsely accused me of hypocrisy, which is unambiguously a personal attack. The comment was particularly offensive because it's an intentional distortion. When I choose not to follow the letter of BRD, I still follow the spirit, as by discussing immediately after reverting the revert. Belchfire just walked over, reverted with an insulting comment and left. Big, big difference.
3. When someone hats a comment as offensive or otherwise indicates that it's offensive to them, the right thing to do in most cases is to redact it. The wrong thing to do in most cases is to edit war to restore it. He violated WP:DICK after violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
4. Graham's hierarchy is about debate. There is no debate here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)