User talk:84.127.80.114

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Debian. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
In addition, please note that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out a campaign, or to try to expose or publicise what you regard as wrongs that need to be righted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please make sure that references you give (a) actually do support the statements in the article that they are supposed to reference, and (b) are from reliable sources: the unsubstantiated opinion of a person writing in a forum or similar place is not normally a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could take a look at the Debian Talk page, "7 Debian private practices and Debian Women activities" section, and tell me if your previous notices still apply. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they do: why did you think they might no? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could show that you have read the talk page.

Could you tell me why do you think I have not tried to reach a consensus?
Why do you think I am the one not using the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes?
Did you see my edit summaries (Please see the Talk page/use it/User refused to talk)?
If you believe I am carrying out a campaign, why do you think so?
Since the references notice still applies, which ones do not support the presented statements or are not reliable?
What check was done to make sure mthinkcpp's claim about my alleged vandalism accusations to several users is true?
What check was done to make sure the other part was behaving correctly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main substance of the message I sent you was about edit warring. Whether you were edit warring or not depends only on whether you were repeatedly reverting edits, not on other issues, such as what other editors were doing, whether the edits you were making were justified, whether or not you have made accusations of vandalism, etc etc. I also mentioned the need for care over use of sources, and the use of Wikipedia to carry out a campaign. Likewise, neither of those is remotely affected by the other, unrelated, issues which you mention.

Perhaps the notice about edit warring which I incorporated in my message could somehow be rephrased to emphasise even more than it does the point Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. It gives advice on how to deal with disagreements, but it does not say "...and as long as you follow the recommended steps to try to reach agreement, it is OK to edit war", but for some reason many editors read it that way, as you appear to have done.

It seems to me that any uninvolved third party reading your edits both to the article and to the talk page would see them, as I did, as being made by someone who believes that there are things wrong with the way things are handled within the Debian community, and who is trying to use Wikipedia to publicly expose what is going on. If that is not what you intended, then you should carefully re-read what you have written, and try to see how it would look to an outsider, as you have inadvertently given a highly misleading impression. If, on the other hand, that is indeed what you intended, then that is what I meant by using Wikipedia to carry out a campaign.

I will give you just one example of adding content that is not supported by the reference you cited for it. In this edit you wrote, among other things, "Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private". As a reference you cited https://lists.debian.org/debian-private/. However, that page makes no mention whatever of "non-security decisions", let alone stating that "many" of them are made via debian-private. A source cited as a reference needs to actually state the fact which it is cited to support, not merely mention something related, as a basis for a Wikipedia editor adding further commentary which is not mentioned in the source.

Have the issues you have been repeatedly trying to air in the article been given substantial coverage in significant independent sources, such as major newspapers, or books? If so, then please give citations to such sources. An encyclopaedia does not contain detailed accounts of internal disagreements within an organisation, documented only in internal documents. For example, I don't expect the article Microsoft to contain details of internal memos discussing how the company organises its management, and there is no reason why Debian should be treated differently.

No, I will not "show that [I] have read the talk page". I have, and you may make your own choice as to whether to believe me or not. In any case, it is of limited relevance, since the issues that I have mentioned in my attempt to help you better understand why your editing is not considered acceptable are all to be seen in your editing of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if JamesBWatson could explain a bit more what is an edit war, given that mthinkcpp made these changes. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please read my warning at the edit warring noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for reverting at Debian after warning at WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

84.127.80.114 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reverted the changes without agreement and being discussed. I did not add any of my proposed changes even though consensus was reached, as explained in [1]. I am unable to use the Debian talk page. If I cannot make even those changes in the article, then say so. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline because this block has expired -- Atama頭 18:31, 25 February 2014 (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 cannot even talk to Bbb23. If Bbb23 is right about the edit warring resolution, then these changes should be made to the first paragraph of the edit war article:

Remove: rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.
Add: it is no defense to say "but I tried to resolve the disagreement by discussion and the other users refused to discuss, so I wasn't edit warring". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) That's still no excuse not to use the article's talk page. As DangerousPanda once said, "We have a WP:BRD process...not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRDDRRRRDDRRRDDRRRR". Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could Epicgenius clarify his previous statement? I am trying to assume good faith but it looks like Epicgenius is implying I am the one that is not using the article's talk page.

Of course, I cannot leave him a Talkback message. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me, no need, I'm aware of your comments. I have nothing to say at this juncture. If you're talking about Epicgenius, this template should notify them through the notification system, although I would be surprised if your talk page isn't on their watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got the ping. I'm retracting my previous statement, as it looks like you did use the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that people are being notified of my comments, then let me use the Debian talk page. Dsimic has answered my assistance request. I am unable to reply. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then just wait until the block expires, and stay out of reverting the edits; anyway, sometimes it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's strange that only a few editors were willing to discuss the whole thing on Talk:Debian; however, it's not my call to draw any conclusions here or there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand Dsimic's last revert. I simply reverted to the way things were before. About the material, we all agree that "something" happens with Debian developers. The Debian constitution says "expel existing Developers", the neutral expression is "expel" not "forcefully dismiss". I am blocked, the neutral expression is "blocked" not "forcefully invited to reconsider their attitude". I did not win, nor lose any debate; natural death did not happen. I cannot drop a stick I do not have. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out these two edits, which toned down the language. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/* User:Mthinkcpp and Debian edit war */ This is now at DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian).

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian, at DRN we only discuss article content, never user conduct. In other words, do not talk about other editors.

Would you do me a favor and edit your opening comments so that the focus is on the content that there was an edit war over, not on edit warring? It has been my experience that if we can solve the content dispute that solves any conduct issues as well. thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about DRN case Debian

Answering this, Guy Macon still wants to continue with the confusion. That last advice "Make a persuasive argument and ..." [2] was obviously not given to me, although the advice would apply in a normal situation but is totally useless in this one. These questions were not answered. It is true that I am not willing to accept the answers given so far, because there has been no discussion and I am not going to drop any stick without debate. About following advice, I am the one that has followed Guy Macon's advice.

Does Guy Macon want to discuss? The Debian talk page is waiting. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have your answer. It is at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Arbitration case request assistance. I am not going to waste any further time on this, so you might as well stop asking. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Guy Macon for proving me right. Feel free to discuss article content any time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request: Debian

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

{{Help me}} I request that one registered user files a request for arbitration on my behalf. The request is the section "Debian" below. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if an administrator could stand by Ed and GorillaWarfare's words.[3][4] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have informed the clerks (who were indeed so quick to act on this they edit conflicted me ;)) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Debian) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is what I asked for.[5] According to Seraphimblade, "I see no indication that normal dispute resolution processes have failed to handle this matter."[6] despite:[7]

A failed DRN case.
The conclusion from Guy Macon: further discussion is unlikely to help.
My unanswered questions: Why are we still discussing the old changes? Why do not we discuss the last proposal? Are not we supposed to move forward?

I acknowledge Guy Macon's efforts to move the debate away from article content and to repeat that "consensus" is against me,[8] considering the user was not going to waste any further time.[9]

I wonder what Floquenbeam's doubts are about "good faith" content dispute and what does the arbitrator mean by disruption. I still would like someone to use the article talk page. Getting opinions from outside editors, is not that a request for comment?

I do not really understand LFaraone's recusal, since no one has requested it. Anyway, it is his decision.

The Committee has spoken and proved what had to be proved. I do not have to agree, just to cooperate. So, I must file RfCs without initial discussion. Is there any limit about the number of simultaneous requests I can file? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon thinks I am trolling.[10] Of course, everyone's contributions speak by themselves. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.