User talk:Caleb Murdock

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Seth Material. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I suggest you self revert to show good faith, or restore to the last stable version Verbal chat 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense! You are the one who is doing the warring! You are the one who refuses to discuss specific issues on the Discussion page!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I have requested that an uninvolved administrator examine your edits to Seth Material, as it is my opinion that you have been engaged in an edit war. The request is here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I have looked over the report at WP:AN3#User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: ). My concern is that your statements do not sound collaborative. You see yourself as the gatekeeper for what should go in the article. The single worst thing I noticed was your removal of tags, which are a signal to others about what aspects need work. I request that you make a plan for how you will edit differently in the future. Otherwise, you may be sanctioned under our edit warring rules. If you are willing to change your approach, let me know. For instance, you could agree to stay away from Seth Material for a while to allow other editors to work on it. Broader exposure to Wikipedia might help you learn our policies. (You could take some time to work on other articles). Let me know what you decide. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't made the same request of Verbal. I think I made it clear that Verbal is doing as much warring as I am. Indeed, I think his attitude is less collaborative than mine since he won't discuss specific issues on the Discussion page. If he'll say why he wants this or that portion deleted from the article, then it can be discussed, but he won't say. If I take a break from editing the article and Verbal doesn't, I'll return to an article which is half the size. Once information has been deleted from the article, it will be hard to put back in -- especially since Verbal feels that he can roll back all of my edits with impunity (which it would seem he can, since you appear to be siding with him). It took a lot of effort on the part of a lot of editors -- not just me -- to build the article to where it is now. To me, this entire situation is absurd. The power seems to be on the side of editors like Verbal who are ignorant of the subject matter.

If Verbal will also take a break of equal time, I'll be happy to take a break. Otherwise, I can't agree. (Actually, what will happen is that Verbal will call in his friends to make the cuts he wants.) I would like to suggest an alternative: that both Verbal and I agree to discuss any changes on the Discussion page before they are made, and that the changes not be made unless we both agree. If we both do this for, say, a month or two, then perhaps we'll learn to collaborate. (Again, however, I'm concerned that Verbal will call in his friends to cut down the article, and I won't be able to stop them.) Perhaps all revisions by everyone should be agreed to first on the Discussion page. As things stand at present, Verbal seems to think that he can make changes freely while I have to get his permission. Again, it's an absurd situation, especially since he is not a knowledgeable editor.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal declined the proposal. Unless there is a further offer, the report will most likely be closed with either a block or a formal restriction of you. I don't agree with your 'absurd situation' comment, and in fact Verbal is much closer to the mainstream of Wikipedia opinion than you are. Verbal is correct about our usual standards for what material should go into articles, though he may not be a subject matter expert. You are way out in left field with respect to policy. Whenever there is a dispute, admins are expected to notice which side is sticking closer to Wikipedia policy.

If you will agree to limit yourself to one revert per day (1RR) on this article for six months, the report can be closed with no block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I have to limit myself to one revert a day in order to continue to edit the article, I'll do so. However, it astonishes me that you are unable to see that Verbal has a biased agenda where the article is concerned, or that his behavior is provocative. If the rules support Verbal and not me, then the rules are cockeyed. The rules should favor editors who have actual knowledge to contribute, not the controlling, rule-driven, self-appointed censors like Verbal.

If you go over to the Jane Roberts article, you'll see that it's been taken over by skeptics. It is now one-third to two-fifths criticism of Jane Roberts. They have insisted on keeping enough of the Seth Material information (that was moved to the new article) to justify a Criticism section, and now that section is overly large. When I try to delete the Seth Material information from that article (because it now has its own article), they restore it because it justifies their overly large Criticism section. Wikipedia's refusal to control non-knowledgeable editors who are pushing biased agendas is damaging the encyclopedia.

Regarding that one revert a day, if I do a revert at 3:00 p.m., do I then have to wait until 3:00 p.m. the next day to do another revert? Or do I get to make one revert in a calendar day? If I am limited to one revert in 24 hours, then that puts me in the position of having to watch the clock, and it effectively gives me less than one revert a day.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your declaration to revert each time is a declaration to engage in slow edit warring, a complete topic ban seems the only solution. You would be violating the spirit of 3RR, which is often enforced even for less than three reverts. You really do need to learn how Wikipedia works by editing other articles on totally different topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unfair. I never did more than two reverts in one day. Verbal did almost as many reverts as I did. He started it by repeatedly reverting my edits, which I made in good faith, without discussion. HE was the one who started the edit war. I was always willing to discuss things on the Talk page, but he would never get specific. His behavior, overall, was inflammatory. If you ban me from editing the only article I care about, then you have no objectivity and no fairness.

I made an overture to Verbal yesterday to bury the hatchet, but he hasn't responded. If he does respond, he will make only a half-hearted attempt and then he'll quit. He acts like Moses coming off the Mount with the Ten Commandments -- he doesn't think he needs to collaborate. Why you would back him up is beyond all logic and reason.

I did NOT say above that I would revert every day for sure -- I was merely ascertaining how reverting works. If Verbal takes me up on my peace offering, reverting won't be necessary. But you just keep checking the Discussion page and you'll see that he will make only a half-hearted attempt. Clearly, Verbal is monitoring this page, so he will make some attempt, but it won't be a serious attempt. I know this guy.

INCIDENTALLY: Above you said that if I limited myself to one revert a day, I would not be further blocked. Now you are going back on your word. (Note: I didn't realize at first that it was Bullrangifer who made that last comment.)

On the discussion page for Seth Material, see "Coming to an understanding" at the bottom.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something: Two administrators have made comments to me on this page. Who is making the decision?

EdJohnston, I agreed to limit myself to one revert a day, so is that the deal? If that's the deal, I want you to know that I don't think it's fair. Just in the last day, Verbal has made cuts to the article with no attempt to collaborate with me, even though I made a clear overture in that direction. It seems to me that the rules are being applied unequally. Verbal gets to wage war without a reprimand, while a higher standard is applied to me. I am told to collaborate, but Verbal is not. Verbal gets to revert my revisions, but I don't get to revert Verbal's cuts. If verbal will not collaborate, then I may indeed use that one revert a day to protect the article from his hatchet.

Let's have your decision.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion at WP:AN

I've closed the edit-warring case with a topic ban, subject to review at WP:AN#Topic ban for your review. You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned from my talk page

Caleb, I will repeat something. I'm not an admin. I have put a hat on the thread on my talk page and done something very radical for me....I have banned you from my talk page. You are welcome to read the thread, since there is a closing message for you, but don't edit my talk page. If you do so, I will report you for harassment. You are already skating on very thin ice, so you'd probably get blocked or banned if you did so. Consider yourself fairly warned. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your topic ban from Seth Material is now in effect

Please see the result of this discussion. You may not edit Seth Material, though you may still comment on the article's talk page. If you read the full thread at WP:AN, you will see that some editors believe you should be indefinitely blocked. Under these conditions, your use of an IP sock, 72.82.20.134, to edit Seth Material looks like flirting with trouble. I hope you will be able to find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. If you ignore the ban and proceed to edit Seth Material, any admin may block you from editing. If you continue using socks, an indef block becomes more likely. The ban has been entered here at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please try to avoid attacking other editors, as here? You have valuable insight on the topic, but it is wasted if you expend your energies in harassment and abuse. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

S-H-U-T U-P.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been blocked 96 hours for restoring a personal attack on Brangifer at Talk:Seth Material after 2over0 had removed it. Use {{unblock|Your reason here}} if you think the block was undeserved. If you are hoping to provoke people into blocking you indefinitely, I'm sorry to say that you may succeed. It's easier to prove you don't belong here than to demonstrate that you can be productive on Wikipedia. Some people still hope that you will try the latter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should I pay any attention to anything you say? Besides Verbal, you are more responsible for creating this situation than anyone else. Though Verbal was clearly doing as much warring as I was, you sided with him and blocked me from the only article I care to edit. You are an administrator who enables the bad behavior of other editors -- Wikipedia addicts like Verbal who have no contribution to make except to attack articles they don't like and make trouble for other editors. You are part of the problem. I've looked at your talk page, and your decisions are entirely capricious, and without a doubt biased in favor of certain editors. You'll make one argument to one editor and then make the opposite argument to another editor. Verbal and Brangifer and the other so-called "skeptics" are really just trouble-makers, and you enable their trouble-making. Wikipedia is a totally fucked up place, and it's people like you who are keeping it fucked up.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal

Hello Caleb Murdock. I've proposed at User talk:2over0#Seth Material that you be indefinitely blocked. (For whatever reason, you and Wikipedia are not working well together). Any promise of improvement by you might be enough to avoid this result. For instance, you could agree to stop posting at Talk:Seth Material and start doing something useful. EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)