User talk:StillStanding-247

Welcome

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Old Al (Talk) 00:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! StillStanding-247, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! Sarah (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How to abuse a talk page.

In a recent post[1], Lionelt outlined a simple plan to get rid of me:

Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Wikipedia. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not coincidentally, when I cleared my talk page, the person he was writing to immediately reverted my wipe. I think it's painfully obvious what's going on here.

I have nothing to hide; I'm proud of my small achievements here and I fully expect that some people will be unhappy with them. However, this talk page is not going to serve as a sewer for these people to fill with bogus notices intended to create the illusion of a pattern of disruptive editing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That was not a "plan": that was a description of what usually happens with edit warriors who are clearly trying to push their point of view into Wikipedia in blithe disregard of our standards and practices, based upon years of observation of how these things happen. To claim otherwise is just plain false. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if I lived in a rough neighborhood -- let's call it Wikipediaville -- and you were visiting it. You've heard terrible things about this place, and it turns out they were all true. Since you're on your toes, you overhear me talking to my buddy about you, saying: "That guy doesn't belong here and he's going to get into trouble. He'll walk into an alley and get mugged by someone with a switchblade. Of course, there has to be a second guy who comes up behind him to keep him from running."

You're not sure whether I was just talking or actively planning, but a few minutes later, you walk into an alley and there I am with my switchblade, demanding your wallet. You turn and run, narrowly escaping before my buddy can close off your route. The next day, you see me talking to two buddies and fondling a bump in my pocket. A bit later, I ambush you in another alley, only this time I have a gun and both of my guys are behind you. You don't know that the gun's not loaded, so my bluff works and I get your wallet.

In case you're having trouble understanding the analogy, mugging is akin to reporting someone to get them blocked, and standing behind someone is supporting the crime by leaving fake notices and edit-warring without quite getting caught, such as when two people tag-team revert their victim and therefore stay under 3RR.

Bottom line: Yes, of course it's a plan. We know because he executed it and it worked. Personally, I find it amazing that you're making excuses and denying the obvious, but I did hear that this neighborhood is terrible. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

You have been mentioned here – Lionel ^(talk) 03:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2012 (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).

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edit comment and the comment on the talk page show that I was acting under the belief that WP:BLP beats out WP:3RR. Is this how you like to WP:BITE new editors who act in good faith? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with Ed. You invoked BLP only on the fourth revert ... to me some sort of estoppel principle applies at that point as a BLP vio would have been obvious from the beginning. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (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 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).

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Keep in mind that the block came through while I was sleeping, and I only had a minute to protest it in the morning. I've since taken the time to study the record and reconstruct the timeline and my thinking. It turns out that, even if you ignore the fact that my last edit was made under the earnest belief that 3RR did not apply to reverting BLP violations, I flatly did not exceed 3RR and should therefore have this block immediately lifted.

According to WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Look at the diffs carefully and you'll see that the first two reported reverts are just the two halves of a single one. [2][3] The first cuts "both praised and" in the middle of the sentence, while the second cuts the end of the sentence, "that had been previously raised by others".

Both parts had been added as a unit[4], with the effect of violating some combination of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE by whitewashing the overwhelmingly negative global response to Romney's Olympic gaffe. I noticed that change while walking through the history, decided it was necessary to revert, and thought I removed all of it. A few minutes later, I noticed that I had somehow failed to, and immediately fixed my error. In the interim, a bot walked by and dated a tag added previously[5], but no user edited it.

What was listed as my third revert (but was actually my second) was a re-removal of the end of the sentence after it was restored, and what was listed as my fourth revert (but was actually my third and last) rolled back both the praise and the end of the sentence at once, as well as a bunch of other BLP issues generated by the original editor. Again, this means that I simply did not violate WP:3RR. At the time I made my last edit, I was aware that I was on the border of 3RR so I invoked BLP, just in case, but it wasn't necessary.

If I'd had a chance to research and respond before the block, I would have pointed this out and there would not have been a block. Therefore, I am asking you to remove my block before it expires. If you're wondering why I'm arguing over a few hours, ask me and I'll explain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the first two edits count as one revert, you were still edit warring. T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (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 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).

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just to be clear, it doesn't sound as if you're even trying to deny that the first pair of reported edits counts as one or that, had this been mentioned, I would not have been blocked. Instead, you're saying that you've just now come up with an additional justification for continuing a block that shouldn't have even been there. This justification could just as easily have been used to block all of the other people who hit 3RR or to protect the whole page. Instead, you're singling me out arbitrarily. Does this seem reasonable to you? From my point of view, it's counterproductive, vindictive, and patently unfair, with all the appearance of political bias.

What's really sad is that you're allowing yourself to be manipulated. As you may have noticed, Lionelt recently leveled some false accusations against me[6] in an attempt to get me blocked. Previously, he admitted that his goal was to get you to shower me with escalating blocks until I gave up[7]. Forget WP:AGF here! His motive is that he's in charge of WikiProjects: Conservatism and I keep editing out conservative bias. And, like it or not, you're letting him make you his pawn.

Not only was I not edit warring, but due to the fact that I expected Lionelt to use any excuse available to attack me, I was limiting myself to 2RR so as to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. I only went as far as 3RR because I am sure that WP:BLP permits me to, so I am doubly convinced that the last revert was acceptable under policy. If I even thought that I was edit-warring, I would have reverted myself. As it was, I left edit-war warnings on editor's talk pages[8] and participated in the article's.

While nobody is unconditionally entitled to three reverts, there was no intent to edit war on my part, and this level of arbitrariness removes the appearance of impartiality among administrators. There are two separate policies which show that my actions are not worthy of a block, yet you've disregarded both and are attempting to substitute pure subjectivity for impartial rule of law. The best part is that, now that I have a black mark on my record, you've given Lionelt the go-ahead to use you again, just like he's used you before. Wikipedia is dying from lack of new editors, and this is precisely why.

I'm going to bed now, and by the time I wake up, I'll be unblocked. The only difference unblocking me would make is that it would reverse an injustice and foil a veteran editor's attempt at WP:BITEing a newbie. The original block was a mistake. Instead of sticking up for an administrator's error, you can reverse it. Nothing stops you from doing the right thing, and your conscience demands it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The WP:3RR policy is not an entitlement to up to three reverts, it's an explicit Bright-line rule to curb edit-warring, of which there is no defined minimum number of edits to qualify. Furthermore, the purpose of an unblock request is to address the actions that brought the block upon yourself, not an examination of why others should be blocked, or the actions of others. From the the changelog below, I see a content dispute. Given the BLP policy statement of Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. I would agree with EdJohnston below and T. Canens above that your edits constituted edit warring. And this edit doesn't help either. Q ^{T C} 06:38, 2 August 2012 (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.

Or, in plain English, rules are for suckers; you just make this stuff up as you go along, singling out whoever you like. If there is no objective definition of edit-warring then everyone is guilty and nobody is. For all of these reasons, I do not accept this block as legitimate. Feel free to abuse me some more for speaking my mind. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have carefully examined your arguments and the edits which led to your block. Please note that I do not know the four administrators who have blocked you or reviewed your block, and that I have no reason to favor them or you. It is my considered opinion that the block was appropriate, and that if you continue to refuse to accept Wikipedia's rules or to insist that they do not apply to you you will be blocked again. As for your argument that you were "singled out" while others were not, see WP:NOTTHEM. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, the case against me was flawed on at least three counts, and these administrators appear not to even understand, much less care about, the rules they're supposed to be endorsing. The person who reported me is on record as having a vendetta and lied outright about my reverts, yet you people are letting him use you against me. Don't expect me to pretend there was any justice in this. It was pure Calvinball all along. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!

— Part of the Calvinball theme song

The sysops understood your unblock request or else they wouldn't of declined it. They understand the rules, and if they don't, they wouldn't of been sysops. There was no rule that the sysops have not cared about in reviewing your unblock request. The user who reported you does not have a vendetta against you and saying he lied without presenting evidence is a personal attack. Sysops have reviewed the circumstances of the block, and we are not interested in justice, but to protect the wiki. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely the sysops were all competent, but how would anyone, sysop or no, know that they've misunderstood... and surely the proverbial sysop understands the "rules" better than the proverbial newcomer... apart from the reader, who wouldn't? It's not a question of understanding the rules, or caring about the rules, or even right and wrong, it was simply their call to make... Still-24's agreement is not required... he does have reason to believe the reporting user's out to get him... why be dismissive... he didn't say the user "lied", he said the user "recently leveled some false accusations", and he did provide a link to "evidence"... that's no personal attack. Perhaps you meant to speak for yourself rather than a Sysops collective? Surely a newcomer is no threat to the wiki and making the right call is part and parcel of "rules" and "justice"... compassion and interest.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 12:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, see above my comment, that is what I'm commenting on. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of a story; a drunk driver gets on the freeway going the wrong way. As everyone swerves to miss him, he hears on the radio that there is a drunk driver going the wrong way on the freeway. He peers through the windshield, finally noticing all of the headlights coming towards him and exclaims "My god! There are hundreds of them!!"

His basic claim is that four administrators (who, I remind you, had to pass a test where they were grilled on Wikipedia policy in order to become administrators) and two users, none of which have ever had any conflict with you or reason to be prejudiced against him, all misunderstand Wikipedia policies, and that he alone understands them. I am going to apply Occam's razor here and propose a far more likely explanation: the problem is him. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Machine Elf 1735, I am having trouble reconciling the following two statements:

"He didn't say the user 'lied', he said the user 'recently leveled some false accusations'." -- Machine Elf 1735

"The person who reported me is on record as having a vendetta and lied outright..." --Still-24-45-42-125

Could you please explain the apparent contradiction? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, the story was very funny, hyperbolic, but very funny. Seriously though, I don't see whereas it's constructive to make of him "a problem"... Cluster-WP:BITE, small wonder if he feels attacked. What's so hard to understand? Obviously, I was referring to a different statement with the same meaning. That's not a personal attack.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Telling him "the problem is you" is the single most constructive thing I could have said to him. He believes -- and your support reenforces that belief -- that FOUR administrators and TWO experienced editors who work as dispute resolution volunteers are ALL wrong. In his own words:

"you're allowing yourself to be manipulated... you're letting him make you his pawn."

"This level of arbitrariness removes the appearance of impartiality among administrators."

"Instead of sticking up for an administrator's error, you can reverse it. Nothing stops you from doing the right thing, and your conscience demands it."

"You just make this stuff up as you go along, singling out whoever you like."

"These administrators appear not to even understand, much less care about, the rules they're supposed to be endorsing."

I find it odd that you have no comments about how unhelpful those accusations are.

Still-24-45-42-125 thinks that the blocking administrator and the reviewing administrators are the problem. they aren't. He is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Shameful, I had the wrong impression of you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will go through these 5 quotes and how they are wrong. We are not supporting him with anything really (only supporting that his unblock requests get declined)

• "you're allowing yourself to be manipulated... you're letting him make you his pawn."
  • We are conscious of what we are doing. We are not getting manipulated, and we may support what we want, not being forced by another person.
• "This level of arbitrariness removes the appearance of impartiality among administrators."
  • Arbitrariness and impartiality are 2 different things. Administrators (and everyone) act on seperate things based on random choice or personal whim sometimes, but they all review all that may be good to know before actioning.
• "Instead of sticking up for an administrator's error, you can reverse it. Nothing stops you from doing the right thing, and your conscience demands it."
  • This is not an administrator's error, and we (think) we are doing the right thing. My conscience demands me to make these comments.
• "You just make this stuff up as you go along, singling out whoever you like."
  • We can make stuff up as we go along (WP:IAR), but in this case (and normally), we (are) act(ing) on policy other than IAR. We act on reason and consensus, we don't single out anyone we want. If we did, another person will revert or discuss until the right thing is done.
• "These administrators appear not to even understand, much less care about, the rules they're supposed to be endorsing."
  • Might I know what policy "these administrators" do not understand (and do not play a wild-card)? We have seen none with these administrators, and they do care and endorse them with reason, just ask them.

Hope this is of help. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"We" lol.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ebe, you're not an administrator, so there is no "we" here. You can make excuses for their errors and bias all you like, but I've already shown why you're wrong. You can try to blame the victim, but this victim isn't cooperating.

No matter how you spin it, Lionelt announced that he would get me blocked, tried once and failed, then tried a second time, succeeding only because he falsely claimed I hit 4RR and I wasn't around to defend myself. EdJohnston was unreasonable to deny me WP:3RRNO for WP:BLP and then sloppy enough not to check whether Lionelt's claim was true.

Of course, people disagree and mistakes happen, so I'd be prepared to forgive him but for the fact that, once the error was revealed, he refused to fix his mistake. Instead, he played Calvinball by invoking the "looks like edit-warring anyhow" excuse, which can be used to block anyone anytime if they dare edit on contentious topics. By doubling down on his error, he grossly abused his sysop bit. I wish I could say he was alone in this, but we had a huge pile-on, with administrators backing each other up and blaming me for getting blocked, and a few others joining the lynch mob.

I did not violate WP:3RR. I did not edit war. The administrators did not follow their own rules. Instead, they allowed themselves to be used by Lionelt, just as he bragged in the first place. These are facts that no amount of spin can ever hide.

The gross incompetence of these administrators is symptomatic of why Wikipedia is failing. I graciously volunteered my time to fix up a few philosophy pages, then noticed serious bias problems on politics pages and worked to correct that as well. My reward from the very start has been abuse, mistreatment, and unfairness.

Now that I have a block on my record, it's only a matter of time before more false reports are lodged against me, and some of them will result in further blocks due to administrator errors and hubris. There's already a demand that I get a mentor to control me and that would be followed with topic bans to neuter me.

Really, why would any sane person volunteer for this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Adminiship is no big deal, and the we refers to everyone. I am not making excuses on people's errors. So you were committing arson to a building, then fire-fighters came along. When they finish, you commit arson again. When you have done that. When you repeat it 4 times, then the fire-fighter calls up the police as they are suspicious fires. Police keep a watch on the building. You came back, with a match, lighter fluid, and was just about to commit arson again. The police officer shoots you down. You came out of the hospital 1 day later.

The administrator carefully reviewed it all, and blocked you to protect the wiki. There was no exception of 3RR to your edits, so EdJohnston was correct. He did review it all, or else he wouldn't of blocked you. I can tell you that it is your fault, as you shouldn't of been edit-warring. EdJohnston did not block you as an error. You have violated 3RR and we can show you with this. As I asked earlier, "Might I know what policy "these administrators" do not understand (and do not play a wild-card)?" A mentor does not control, the mentor only tries to make you know more about Wikipedia. A sane person would do that to help a newcomer. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like using "we". ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if English isn't you're first language. There are several reasons why you might not want to do that:

1. The royal we: it comes across as more condescending than apodictic.
2. You don't intend it to refer to "everyone"... you implicitly exclude your interlocutor as other. It's inappropriate and presumptuous for you to lecture a user on behalf of "everyone".
3. It's understood that you're a member of the group for which you're speaking, and regardless of what you meant, when you said: “Sysops have reviewed the circumstances of the block, and we are not interested in justice, but to protect the wiki.” you misrepresented yourself as an admin. WP:TALKNO. As unwitting spokesperson, it's an affront to the WP:WW#Expectations of adminship to categorically dismiss every claim the user makes as patently false: “Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.”

It's perfectly natural for a user who gets blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR to be downright pissed about it.

Clearly, Ed and the unblock responders answered “promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions”. However, the user wasn't given a wide berth to cool his jets, a third party admin stepped in to threaten the newcomer if he allegedly continues to refuse to accept Wikipedia's rules or (allegedly continues?) to insist that they do not apply him... Of course, four admins could be wrong... but in this case, just one... including the part about Occam's razor. Is being sub admin-level knowledgeable in policy a blockable offense? Telling him "the problem is him" is hardly less menacing... Apparently, by "supporting" him, I reinforce his belief that FOUR admins could be wrong. Unfathomable! Only one real and one imaginary.

Is the naïveté of the criticism blockable? How about reducing someone to a "problem"? "Helping" the angry man via point by point editorial of the aforementioned naïve criticism resulted in some melodramatics about grossly abused his sysop bit. Whereat: “So you were committing arson to a building, then fire-fighters came along. When they finish, you commit arson again. When you have done that. When you repeat it 4 times, then the fire-fighter calls up the police as they are suspicious fires. Police keep a watch on the building. You came back, with a match, lighter fluid, and was just about to commit arson again. The police officer shoots you down. You came out of the hospital 1 day later.” I'll just point out, the "arsonist" was unarmed. I leave the factual errors in the following story as an exercise for the reader.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Machine Elf, have you ever disagreed with Still-24-45-42-125 on anything? Anything at all? I am sure that you had plenty of opportunities at User talk:Machine Elf 1735#Told you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.45.42.125... I'm not sure what, exactly, you would have liked me to protest, are you still beating your wife? —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I will take that as a no. Generally, when someone has behaved in such a way that four admins and two DRN volunteers all agree that he has misbehaved, even his staunchest supporter can find some small flaw in his behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Four admins or three? I have to ask because people seem to have trouble telling these two numbers apart. For example, Lionelt claimed I hit 4RR when, at most, I hit 3RR. Amazingly, an actual admin took his word for it, used it as the basis for a block, and then insisted that the number doesn't matter anyhow, once the error was revealed. With errors like this, I think we have to be careful putting too much weight on these claims, don't you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that he was a security risk to the people inside, setting them on fire. I do not think that you could go in an airport with a match and lighter fluid. If anything (in Canada), you would have a lawsuit. To Still-24-45-42-125, english is not my native language. It's French. The ability of all the sysops is possible too, although I do not think that will happen. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Analogies only work to the extent that they're apt. If reverting a page that violates policy is arson, then everyone here is a career arsonist.

Let me give you a better analogy. Imagine that you go on vacation to the scenic but corrupt Caribbean island of Wikipedia. There's no public transportation, so you rent a car. The worker at the rental agency notices your "Go Sheep!" t-shirt, so he gives you a white car with pro-sheep, anti-goat bumper stickers: "Shepherds do it better", "I <3 Sheep", "Goats stink!", and "Why does goatherd penis smell like goat vagina?!". A small one shows a stylized bleating goat's head inside the international red, circle-with-slash symbol for negation: it reads "Goat Busters". They also give you a local driver's license, which has a section to record points you accumulate for moving violations. It's clear that, once it's full, your license is voided.

As you pull out, you encounter a group of smelly men who see your bumper stickers and take umbrage. They shout pro-goat, anti-sheep slurs and one of them, who seemed quiet but has a crazy look in his eye, publicly threatens to have you killed while inciting others to help.

You decide to drive up to the historic sheep meadows, but the path up the Romney Mountains is unsafe. The road is wide but curvy, so there's not much visibility, and instead of shoulders, there's shear rock on one side and a cliff on the other. Absurdly, the speed limit here is 60 mph, just like on the highway, but despite the locals taking advantage of this, you decide it's safer to limit yourself to about 40 unless there's some good reason to go faster.

As you gently round a curve, you see a stalled goat milk delivery truck blocking traffic in your lane. There's no chance you could brake in time, so you signal left and honk frantically. Nobody slows down to let you in, so you gun the engine, accelerating nearly to 60, and narrowly slip in between two cars in the fast lane, avoiding the goat truck. As soon as you pass it, you ease back onto the slow lane, but before long, you're pulled over by a police officer.

The officer gestures at his radar gun and announces that you were speeding. You explain that, even if you were, it was an emergency situation and did what you had to in order to avoid an accident, which is why you were honking like crazy. He admits that he heard the honking but interpreted it as you saying you were above the law, so he rejects your excuse and increases your fine.

He insists that he clocked you going over 80, so that's that, but as he walks over with your ticket, he adjusts his belt, accidentally triggering the radar gun hanging from it. Absurdly, it claims that the stationary road is coming at him at 30 mph. Ah, now you understand what happened: his radar gun is miscalibrated and you weren't even speeding. You point this out and he doesn't deny it, but instead says you're guilty regardless of the entirely subjective crime of reckless driving, so the ticket stays.

You remind him about the stalled truck and then gesture at the non-rented cars in the fast lane that are whizzing past, going at least 60. In response, he calls you an undesirable and increases your ticket. At this point, the goat truck passes by, and you recognize the driver as that crazy-eyed guy who threatened and incited murder. You try to explain to the cop that someone just tried to kill you, but he just laughs and increases the ticket again. Not only is the fine worse, but you're going to get a whole bunch of points against you, and without a license, you can't do much of anything on this island.

As the police car pulls away, it all sinks in and you realize that the deck is stacked against you. You cancel your vacation and head for the airport. As you wait on line for your flight, you see some familiar faces in the lounge; the police officer is drinking a beer and eating a goat sandwich while the crazy-eyed guy is right next to him, holding the radar gun and drinking a beer. When they see you, they pause to give you the finger and wave ironically before laughing and going back to their social meal.

The moral of the store is that Wikipedia is a corrupt little death trap for tourists. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Only fair

I thought it was only fair that you be aware of this discussion — Ched :  ?  19:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lionelt

I too share your concerns about Lionelt, but harassing him on his talk page is going to get you blocked again. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. Harassment is unacceptable. On the other hand, if I were to write messages discussing what we could do to get him blocked, would that be ok? Or do we have two standards here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas and others have been trying incessantly to get Lionel blocked so no double standard exists. Ryan Vesey 05:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, I really, really hope you're able to back this allegation up with a diff. Because if you can't, you're violating WP:AGF and you need to apologize. So, do you have anything to back it up or are you violating AGF? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lacking a diff isn't violating AGF. Note the number of appearances of Lionelt on User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 17. I do not know if Viriditas or others are bringing him up elsewhere, but Viriditas made it clear that he would like Lionel blocked. Ryan Vesey 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less true, but Lionelt has made an attempt to change his behavior. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean he was worse? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, and look for my comments. I defended Lionel. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about your plot to harm Machine Elf. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This was closed as a waste of time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note this sock puppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Still-24-45-42-125. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? First his buddy gets me blocked by lying about WP:3RR, now he's trying the same trick that got SkepticAnonymous blocked. This small group of people is acting in bad faith to bite me. (If you doubt their motives, Lionelt admits to malice at the top of this page.) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, in case you missed it, the CheckUser showed me as NOT A SOCK. Big shock there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:SkepticAnonymous

Just so you are aware, I have added some information and my perspective to the ANI discussion and crosspasted it to User Talk:SkepticAnonymous. I agree there's a major WP:BITE violation here and some severe protection of POV warriors going on. However, the admins seem to going into the mode of protecting each other, which is always the case when we have misbehaving administrators. I doubt anything will be accomplished, but at least the dirty laundry has been aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Demiurge1000 is asserting that I am SkepticAnonymous. How very sad. They jump to accusations of sockpuppetry without reason or evidence so quickly when they think it will win them an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Accusing people of sockpuppeting is a safe bet for them. There's always a chance that someone will be blocked incorrectly, like SkepticAnonymous, and the whole process is so incredibly insulting that it's sure to bite editors into leaving. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a long conversation on IRC with DennisBrown. He refuses to admit any more than that "there may have been" WP:BITE behavior in the past. He refuses to admit so publicly to ANI, and he refuses to investigate the misbehavior by Belchfire and others in this nor to chastise the admins who engaged in WP:BITE behavior. Looks like adminship is thicker than blood is thicker than water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this general sort of behavior. Consider my own case above, where Lionelt files a report claiming I hit 4RR, an admin believed him without checking, and now nobody will admit that the block was an error. :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask the admin if he checked if you want to continue saying that. Also, an admin's duty is only to protect the wiki, and so if you appear to (or going to) disrupt the wiki, then the administrator may block. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My behavior was consistent with the other editors on the article. The only difference is that I was falsely accused of 4RR and blocked on that basis. The funny thing is that, once I publicly stated my displeasure with WP:DRN's ability to actually resolve disputes, both you and Guy took it personally and have been hounding me since. Perhaps it's time for you to disengage. Instead of trying to punish me for speaking my mind about DRN, try proving me wrong by doing your job better. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's bull. Admins are people and not necessarily always professional in the execution of their duties. They can carry grudges and issue punative blocks to service those personal grudges. It is almost impossible to lose the bit around here based on cultural precedence and a taboo regarding wheel warring or even questioning another admin's decision(s), and rogue admins use this too to shame and threaten challenging admins into silence. (One admin even called another admin a troll for questioning his decision.) There are many examples of abusive admin actions, you appear to have extremely limited or selected vision of admin purity around here. Amazing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This didn't start with malice on the part of the admin (although, according to his own statement, Lionelt did act with malice). The problem is a form of intellectual inertia. Once he decided I was a bad man because I hit 4RR, nothing could sway him, not even the fact that I didn't hit 4RR. New facts that got in the way of comfortable, old conclusions were disregarded. As a result, instead of apologizing for an innocent error, he doubled down and stood by his original decision, no matter how poorly it fit the new facts. What's worse is that his admin buddies followed him down this road. It's like the thin blue line, only with fake badges. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you think a local consensus is forming that is at odds with global consensus, try RfC. RfC is pretty effective for establishing the global consensus: the only issue is that it takes 30 days to run. Read about it here: WP:RFC. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've read about it, and it sounds like a full-time job. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How to edit a controversial article

Don't revert, add. I noticed you reverted the "positive and negative media coverage". You could have more usefully added the negative coverage included front-pages ridiculing Romney on all the major newspapers: Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Mirror, Star, Independent, with positive coverage from the now US-based Piers Morgan. Refs to eah pf those would have reinforced the point. It clearly wasn't a case of mixed reviews, but there are better ways to demonstrate that than by removing "and positive". 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it to heart. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The path taken

Sometimes it is better to lose one battle in order to win another. Your block is over, and one thing I have seen a great reluctance for at Wikipedia, is doing things over for the sake of doing them right. Generally, and unfortunately in my opinion, once something is done, its usually a done deal unless there is a compelling reason to redo it. Since your block is already over, reviewing it fits into that category of "over and done" in most editors' minds.

I think at this point you would be a lot better off simply learning this lesson, and taking great care to choose battles that work toward a greater benefit. I wouldn't ever expect thanks for this or even a great deal of love for it, since many editors unfortunately take a very VERY pragmatic view of things and simply think that 'good enough' is enough.

You might have gotten wronged here, but another way to look at it is simply as learning a lesson about how things work at Wikipedia. It isn't all roses and candy and happy times. Sometimes it is ego and impatience and bullheadedness. Do your best to stay on the positive side of things if you can. -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I believe that enough light has been shed on the situation that it would be more difficult for Lionelt to once again get away with misleading admins into blocking me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, an editor can "chum up" with a less-than-scrupulous admin who overlooks anything said editor might do, and have distincly different view re what you might do. And then there's Email where such requests can even be privately specified. (Isn't that nice?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How sweet. For what it's worth, it doesn't look as though the admin Lionelt used against me was in his pocket, just too hasty to check the claim and unwilling to reconsider their error. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24, you're not the only one. Lionelt has tried to get me blocked too. Pass a Method talk 11:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, we should form a club. Wave to Machine Elf; he's also a member. That's three fatwas that I know of so far. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24 isn't just claiming that Lionelt tried to get him blocked. If that was his only claim, nobody would be objecting. What Still-24 is claiming is that Lionelt tried to get him blocked and the administrators and dispute resolution volunteers who reviewed the block are all idiots who the Evil Genius Lionelt can manipulate at will like puppets on a string. Being one of those dispute resolution volunteers, I naturally take great exception to that assertion. I am not a moron and Lionelt is not a supervillain. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the source of your irrational bias against me, but you do realize that the "quote" isn't actually a quote at all, just some straw man you invented. And, to be frank, this has nothing to do with you. Your competence in dispute resolution has little bearing on whether admins will double-check false claims (rarely) or reverse themselves once the evidence becomes clear (almost never). Lionelt is not an evil genius, or any other kind, and Ed's not an idiot, just mistaken and somewhat inflexible. I don't demonize people, so you don't get to pretend that I do. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't Wikipedia be far more interesting if this is where Evil geniuses come in their spare time? When the henchmen are at training and the secret lair is being cleaned, and the Evil genius has a few spare moments away from "the office", with his or her Evil spouse and Evil kids, with the Evil dog (or perhaps Evil cat, since cats are inherently more Evil), the Evil genius takes time to update the sum of human knowledge of all things Evil. Just makes you have a warm fuzzy feeling. :) -- Avanu (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm detecting a general lack of genius on Wikipedia, even among the certified geniuses. Perhaps there's a dumbening field at work here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

One of these days I am going to accomplish my lifelong goal of having Wikipedia give me the official title of Dalek Supreme, after which I will show those Evil Geniuses how it is done. Bwaaaaaahahahahahaha!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my problems so seriously. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, please stop subjecting him to ridicule in lieu of threats. It speaks very poorly of DRN that you and Ebe123 interjected yourselves, professing to be uninvolved, when you, at least, clearly have a bone to pick with him and Ebe123 has an ongoing problem with impersonating an admin.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in your opinions concerning Still-24-45-42-125. I don't know what your relationship to him is, but your bias is obvious. I stopped being neutral when he started posting false accusations about me. And, of course, I will recuse myself from any future DRN cases that either of you are involved in. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, ok, but he's right. You're using humor to ridicule, or trying to, anyhow. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a relationship with Still, contrary to your repeated innuendo. You are claiming Still allegedly lied about what you've done in your capacity as a DRN volunteer... diffs? With varying degrees of contempt, you've posted long lists of Still's purported misbehavior to multiple fora, as if any sort of misbehavior where self-evident in each case. I've demonstrated how hypocritical your first claim was, and yet, you continued to include that misrepresentation... My concern is not that you might volunteer for a future DRN case in which I'm involved. My concern is that you've personally decided to defend one party so vigorously by appeal to the authority of administrators and DRN volunteers, authority which you've extended in support of Ebe123's numerous factual errors, impersonation of an admin, and prattle about an air travel terrorist setting people on fire. As you haven't responded to Still's inquiry, the meaning of "FOUR" admins and "TWO" volunteers remains ambiguously quantified; but any such justification by itself is trivially fallacious: it is never 'Stilly Season' (if Collect will forgive the pun.[9][10][11]) Crying "wolf" seems to be your only justification, as you've interjected each time Still tried to call attention to Lionelt's plan.

It is a big mess, and pretty much everybody involved is at fault. The reason why I selected our former IP guy is that he has accused me of wrongdoing. (He has also accused the admin who blocked him, and the admin who declined his unblock, and pretty much anyone who has failed to agree that he is 100% pure and good).

— Guy Macon, User talk:Guy Macon, 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your claims that I misbehaved while working as a dispute resolution volunteer on the WP:DRN case you filed would be more credible if not for the fact that you recently accused three admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and another dispute resolution volunteer of misbehavior. What are the odds that we are all misbehaving and that you alone are without fault? You are having a lot of conflict with a wide variety of people. Perhaps you should ask yourself what the common factor in all of those conflicts is.

— Guy Macon, User talk:Jimbo Wales, 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that you're "not interested" in addressing my concerns. That's not an acceptable outcome when a DRN volunteer takes it personally.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that volunteering at WP:DRN requires one to be a punching bag, you are sadly mistaken. As I said, I do not get involved with DRN cases if one of the participants is someone who has been abusive, but other than that I have no responsibility to remain neutral when someone personally attacks me. Please leave me alone. I don't want to have anything top do with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember when you gave me a barnstar for my constructive criticism? Remember when you took my further criticism personally and took the barnstar back? See the problem yet? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's twice now that Macon stated he "stopped being neutral" re Still-24. I'd be real curious to get a specific understanding just what that means to him. (Something tells me it doesn't mean recusing oneself from a dispute; but rather, turning on various forms of incivility & aggression [like introducing ridicule, exaggeration, putting words in an editor's mouth, misleading diff summaries, repeat postings in multiple locations intended to denigrate an editor's reputation, and other nastiness].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Something tells you? :-)

This doesn't take a crystal ball; he's already done all of the things you spoke of. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, here's the thing. I think that this entire thing is ready to go away, if we simply allow it to. Can we all agree to let bygones be bygones here? -- Avanu (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If that means that Lionelt calls off the fatwa, Guy and Ebe go back to DRN, and so on, sure. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you actually mean 'jihad', but regardless, that kind of hyperbole in your language needs to end. It is our duty at Wikipedia to de-escalate conflict, not add to it -- REGARDLESS of whether someone else is not behaving that way. And while I think it would be best if Guy lets this go, and whoever Ebe is does the same, this all starts with you. You've had your day in court so to speak, it went badly, and you've had your appeal which didn't succeed. The point is, why keep fighting things this same way? If you just want to keep up bad feelings, then by all means continue on that path.... you'll get blocked and become an angry ex-editor. The alternative is to work to fix this situation. Ignore Guy's rants for a bit and focus on doing positive stuff. He'll get over it. I've seen him be extremely reasonable, and so I know he will move on if you do. And really I think the rest of them will as well. As they say "chicks dig scars" and you've got a scar now. Be proud of the fact that you have it and don't worry about what people think, just do your best. And let this slide and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I do mean fatwa, at least in the colloquial sense of a death warrant. Lionelt's original proclamation against me is effectively a fatwa, and he's done similar things for others; see above. My feeling is that the only way to deescalate this is to take it out of the shadows and shine some sunlight on it. It's the antidote to all the silly spy-talk -- the code names, the wink-winks, and so on.

I never did get my day in court, because the ruling was made while I slept. Once that's done, it's very hard to get admins to reverse themselves, even when the claims of the original case are easily undermined by the facts.

It's really not clear that shutting up will do anything at this point but enable Lionelt and his fellow travelers to strike again. As it was, one of them launched a CheckUser against me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is buying your "Lionelt controls the admins" conspiracy theory. Follow the rules like the rest of us have to do and anyone who tries to get you in trouble will experience WP:BOOMERANG. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I've explained before that you're inventing a straw man. There is no special power that Lionelt has, other than his willingness to file false charges. The failure is on the part of admins who don't take the time to check whether the accusations are true and aren't willing to back off once it becomes clear that they're not.

At this point, your comments are bordering on incivility and I'm just about ready to start deleting your posts on sight. If you can't say anything neutral or productive, you don't need to speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a popular tactic to shove the word "conspiracy" in editors' mouths who never said that or thought that. See here. (Which also shows another example of Macon's use of ridicule on WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you scroll up to the top, you can see where I preserved Lionelt's "let's lynch him" message. If that's a conspiracy, it's a rather inept one. So far, all they've managed is one block due to admin error and a whole lot of vote-stacking.

I am, for the reasons stated above, unhappy with Guy's behavior. I don't know whether it's reassuring or distressing to learn that I am not his only target. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice

What you did here: [12] was edit warring. When someone makes a bold change, and it's reverted, whatever you do; do not re-insert it without consensus. Go to the talkpage and make your case, and then get consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this? I've asked North8000 at least three times to state what compromise he would accept, as opposed to blocking the insertion of any new material about sexual abuses. He hasn't answered, so now I'm trying to work with more reasonable editors, instead. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You missed step two, and gain consensus. That doesn't mean instantaneously people have to comment; it can take some time. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't template established users, they (generally) already know the rules. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaining consensus on this one is going to require escalation. It's the usual situation: the article is about a conservative person or group, so the resident conservative editors apparently feel that they should have full control of it, even when that leads to violating WP:NPOV. Any apparent criticism is immediately reverted, with editors teaming up to avoid 4RR. No real consensus is possible without external influence because the owners act as a block and are not particularly willing to compromise. I suspect this will end with WP:NPOVN.

As for templating, I don't know of any reason why it shouldn't be done with established users. In particular, I haven't seen any policy that suggests it and it doesn't match my experience. As part of Lionelt's plan, I was templated repeatedly with the same few templates, even when they were inaccurate. I'm sure they knew I was aware of the rules, but that didn't stop them. Besides, I needed to give North8000 formal notice in order to report him to ANI, which I would have to do if he hit 4RR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that when you make a bold change, and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take things to the talk page and discuss, and not to re-insert without consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Continental conservatism

A couple things: 1) Do not replace a prod notice when it's been removed. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information. 2) Redirecting an unsourced daughter article to a sourced parent article is best practice. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right about that. Once I noticed, I removed the PROD.

I don't believe the parent article has the same material, so this seems like a loss. Why not let Lionelt provide some of those sources he says he found? It's been this way for two years; we could wait a few days at least. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Are you going to take the bull by the horns and deal with it when he doesn't add the sources? Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I might, but I wouldn't want to step on his toes. Let him have a few days. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have help. So, will you give me an update in a few days and let me know what you've decided? Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Give him until after the weekend. If he's still got nothing, I'll follow up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You aren't helping with the constant sarcastic and snarky jabs at Lionel. Try to stick to the topic. Comment on content, not the contributor. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you show me a diff of a recent example? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

[13][14] Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And another one: [15] Viriditas (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a straight answer and keeping the context. This reinforces my belief that you're acting in good faith.

The first link is a comment I made to Lionelt, in response to:

leave the drama to another "unnamed editor" who is much better at it. [That was humor]

Given the unprovoked insult, I think my response was pretty mild. I said:

Insults are a poor form of humor. The problem is that the humor is subjective, but the insult remains.

By my reckoning, telling someone their joke wasn't funny doesn't begin to compare to implying that someone is a master of drama and then claiming it was just a joke. Their comment was clearly uncivil.

The next one is in response to you, but was about Lionelt. You told him that, "potential RfA supporters aren't likely to recognize your sense of humor and will take you literally when you say you want the tools to block other users". My response was to remind you that, in fact, he really does want to block other users, as shown by the two false 3RR claims he filed against me. The grammar is a bit sloppy because I edited it to tone it down but didn't clean it up. In any case, it's both provoked and relatively mild.

The last one was clearly address to Guy, not Lionelt, after he outlined his advice on how to get me blocked permanently. It consisted nothing more than:

Thank you for these handy directions on how to harm other users.

Given the context, all three of these are extremely civil. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask, are you from the UK? Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me, but given the amount of negative attention and the potential for abuse, I'd rather not say. I've been told that I use Mid-Atlantic English, and I'll leave it at that. I do want to assure you that, contrary to Arthur Rubin's repeated insults, English is my native language; I understand it perfectly well and have written in it professionally. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking more generally, would it be correct to say that you have lived in a current or former Commonwealth realm? Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved around a bit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar talk - moving comment

I gather you are a little newer, I would say pick and chose your battles. Try to be civil even when those involved are not. I felt ganged up on too and appreciate you coming to my aid. At same time do not get baited into confrontation as that is a common tactic on here and no one wins. While I was certainly involved I think the crux of the dispute and minor hostility was between you and the owner of the other half. So both of you backed off and Focused on content which I think resulted in a compromise.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate that you gave the other half the barnstar to North8000. We've had our disagreements, but I was able to compromise with him to improve the article, and that's what matters. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Social conservatism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.