Hi. You are new here, so I should let you know that your actions may be seen as edit warring on circumcision, which is not allowed on wikipedia; you may want to review the policy. In general, we try and use the talk page to iron things out; although that sometimes takes longer than we would like. For the record, if there is evidence of edit warring, sysops can take actions such as locking the page or even restricting edit privileges, as described on the link above. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why haven't you deigned to paste this nonsense on Blackworm's profile, I wonder? After all, Blackworm's the one making baseless edits; Blackworm is woefully ignorant. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Firstly, as an established user, Blackworm knows full well about this, and does not need to be informed before administrative action may be taken. Secondly, Blackworm and I have a long history of disagreements going back years, so I am not the best person to be warning him unless there is no other choice. No implication that you were more at fault than he was meant, and my apologies if you took it that way. -- Avi (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ActuallyRationalThinker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Regarding this edit, first, please do not edit other users' user pages. If you wish to communicate, the correct thing to do is to edit the user talk page: that is, User talk:Jakew, notUser:Jakew.
Second, as I am an established user it is generally considered inappropriate to use a template (in this case {{uw-npa}}). A polite message regarding the personal attack in question would have been more appropriate. Please see WP:DTTR which, although not policy, is a good guide.
Finally, I am mystified as to why you are warning me about personal attacks at all. Who did I attack, and when? The warning I gave you, which you later deleted, was in response to your edit summary here, in which you referred to me as a "fool". Although I have searched through our interactions, I have been unable to find anything comparable; if I have attacked you I apologise, but I would be grateful if you would specify how I have done so. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You attacked my character in the edit summary here, in which you imply my contribution is a meritless, self-serving untruth (when in fact I was correct and you were not). Then you proceeded to ignore my explanation and enter into an edit war (throwing your weight around as 'an established user'). Nevertheless, your apology is accepted. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, ActuallyRationalThinker. You have new messages at Jakew's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[1]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jakew (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
December 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg (talk)19:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jay's talk page is on my watchlist. Note that even if it hadn't been on my watchlist there are many easy ways to notice edits, such as if someone looked at your contribution list or looked at Jay's list. In general, making unsubstantiated attacks rather than discussing issues is not helpful. (Incidentally, your page is on my watchlist so you don't need to duplicate replies. Putting them just here is fine). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I recognize that I was engaging in edit warring, which I recognize is against the policy of Wikipedia; I apologize, and I recognize that such behavior is not fruitful.
Please consider the fact that the material I was introducing is properly cited, quoted, formatted, and relevant; it is not the stuff of petty vandalism. Also, please note that I felt I was being cornered by a clique of biased editors who I considered to have no intention of building consensus and every intention of wasting time. My reaction was thus born of exasperation rather than any kind of malice that could truly disrupt Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I must contest the disgusting accusation of "race baiting"; cultural practices have nothing to do with race, and I ask that such an accusation be completely expunged from any record that may be kept regarding this situation.
I take one look at your edits and I see antisemitism, accusations of a "cabal", both templating and accusing a long standing member of this community of being a sockuppet and clear edit warring. I'm sorry, but you've shown a pattern of behavior that has no place on Wikipedia. Brandon (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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'm not sure I follow you; I don't consider "Jew" to be an insult. I was making an exasperated observation of what seemed like suspiciously biased and organized behavior: "Wow. A third Jew, Brewcrewer--who has NEVER edited the circumcision article even once before--appears out of nowhere to join the cabal." That comment is admittedly unconstructive, and I made it in the heat of an edit-war for which I have already acknowledged wrongdoing and for which I have already apologized. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that a quick review of Brewcrewer's history will show that he spends an exorbitant amount of time cleaning, formatting, protecting, and writing articles that relate to Israel, Jews, Judaism, and the Holocaust; while this does not excuse the unconstructive nature of my edit summary, I do believe that it validates the exasperation I was trying to express. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been a casual contributor to Wikipedia, I don't have the kind of intertwined relationships that some of the heavy users seem to have forged; consequently, I was rather taken aback by JoshuaZ's rebuttal of my apparently misplaced message for Jayjg. Hence, my comment: "Why would you know or care if I made such a mistake? One conclusion is that you regularly collude with 'Jay'; perhaps you are Jay." It was off-the-cuff and isolated to my own talk page. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that an Administrator would carelessly hint at such an accusation when I have been berated thrice now over one instance of making a similar (though less direct) hint towards another editor; your accusation is groundless. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I apologize sincerely for edit-warring and for a few unconstructive remarks, I take issue with Brandon's baseless and defamatory claim that my edits display any kind of "antisemitism"; if there is a specific example you have in mind, please give me the intellectual courtesy of informing me what that is, so that I might defend myself properly. Simply accusing me of such bigotry out of hand borders on libel, and doing so with the voice of an Administrator seems like an abuse of power. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to Wikilawyer with you; I'm also not going to point out the socks per WP:BEANS. I blocked you for your editing pattern alone. Frankly, if you're too dense to see the problems with your edits, after we explained them above, then indeed you have no place here. The only way you will be unblocked here is a sincere promise to never do such edits again and a contrite attitude towards your remarks. WP:GAB. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, can you please point to where you said that you were sorry for having used anti-Semitic language and for making unsupported sockpuppet accusations? Corvus cornixtalk06:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I would not even consider unblocking you until you acknowledged the offensive use of the word "Jew" and the offensiveness of the context in which you said it, but since you see no need to apologize, nor even to acknowledge how your comment could be considered offensive, I, personally, don't think you should be unblocked. Corvus cornixtalk19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I agree with Corvix. Ever mentioning someone's religion or race in a way that seems derogatory is bad news bears. "Oh great, another Jew", "Oh great, yet another black guy"... however you say it, it's bad. And you're not taking responsibility for it: I never used any language that is even remotely racist. I call troll or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already acknowledged that my remarks have upset people in a way that was disruptive to the collegial environment, and I have already promised to do my best to avoid making the same mistakes again. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about I'm really really really sorry and I was completely out of line, no ifs ands or buts and I will never speak that way to another human on Wikipedia again if you unblock me? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments and actions were quite contrary to Wikipedia's goal of crafting an encyclopedia of unparalleled quality through the process of civil, collegial discussion and consensus. I promise to conduct myself in a way that tries to meet those goals. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I have demonstrated that I recognize the disruptive nature of my remarks and edits, and I have made an explicit commitment not to engage in further such disruption (see the discussion above).
The block has served its purpose and should be removed as per the blocking policy:
"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment"
"Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems."
"The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior."
"Incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations." [I am now around 92 hours into my first ever block, which was made indefinite.]
"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy... It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future."
"Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now"
"administrators should avoid imposing blocks that are unlikely to be preventative in the reviewable circumstances."
I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'm not convinced at the moment that you do fully understand and accept why you were blocked. You say above, for example, that you don't consider "Jew" to be pejorative, but regardless of whether it is or not or whether the editor is or isn't a Jew (or a member of a cabal for that matter), it has nothing whatever to do with building an encyclopaedia and so to employ the term like that will inevitably be seen as pejorative by the other party. Add to that the edit warring and the appeals of the block based on technicalities of the blocking policy/the behaviour of other editors/attempts to justify your actions, and I'm afraid I need a little more convincing that you can work collaboratively with other editors and work within the current consensus while attempting to establish consensus in favour of your own proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 have stated several times that I realize my comments have been as disruptive as you describe.
Put in a way that mirrors your own terms: Regardless of whether or not I have met your standards for having fully understood and accepted why I was blocked, it has nothing whatever to do with either my ability to recognize what may be disruptive to the collegial environment or my ability to contribute productively to the building of an encyclopedia. That is, regardless of whether or not I actually am the most monstrous bigot in the world, it makes no difference to the Wikipedia Project if I can in fact conduct myself in a way that is satisfactory to the goals of the Wikipedia Project.
I believe that this discussion has demonstrated my ability to achieve those goals; I have not attempted to evade the block, and I have discussed the situation civilly (at length, mind you).
Essentially, you have declined my unblock request by recapitulating the issues I have already confronted (and without even first giving me the opportunity to respond to your qualms); to attempt to extract any more from me than compliance with the policies of conduct is to abuse blocking or banning as a means of exacting punitive revenge, a purpose that is explicitly forbidden not just as a technicality but as the very spirit of the device and policy in question. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jakew (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
