User:Blackvisionit/problematic user

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Problematic user (deleted) + Blocking admin User:Qwyrxian[edit]

After a closed COI dispute about Floppy disk hardware emulator, solved with removal of all disupted text, there are still a problems that need to be solved in order to restart normal editing process:

  • Blocking admin:
    • has been explicitely assured that any editing will be performed according to principles agreed in the talk-page
    • no other less than 100% NPOV edit has been added to the article since then 21:10, 4 August 2011
  • Problematic user:
    • is actively stalking and witchhunting - he admitted it (deleted)
    • not willing to reach any consensus and absolutely not cool about editing - he admitted it (deleted), explicitly talks about war (deleted) and wants to educate me about technical flaws (deleted)
    • misusing any possible WP:* to defned his opinion - compulsory consensus with (deleted), as stated by blocking admin, is therefore simply impossible

Blackvisionit (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that the above really didn't help your case - it assured me that the 24hr block is valid and needed to protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We've misunderstood each other: { { unblock } } and { { uninvolved } } were intended as separate issues so, after unblock being closed, uninvolved is reopened. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdraw first your never-ending COI talking, publicly, in the User:Qwyrxian's talk page. I'll also Withdraw my problematic user issue. Editing will restart in a relaxed and peaceful atmosphere: normal users editing without need of external moderation or bureaucratic consensus for each word... just 20s after adding them. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've clearly showed to anybody (User:Qwyrxian is the only disaccording one) that, after reaching consensus about the COI-preventing discussed guidelines, editing has been NPOV.

Summarizing again

  • Problem has been solved
  • Future correct behaviour has been discussed and agreed
  • Other problems rose ONLY in the talk-page and ONLY interacting with the problematic user

so, given that premise, I have the right to go on editing as any other user - being fully conscious of what is right to be added and what to be avoided. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A wise mediation could be adding a template-disclaimer in the talk-page, something like: 'User X is the designer of Y, but has agreed and promised to avoid any biased editing. User X is ready to discuss and remove any statement, after evidence of product-related biasing' Blackvisionit (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Or, a better solution is the one that complies with WP:COI. You've demonstrated you don't know how to be neutral, so now you need to use the talk page for all edit suggestions. Your suggestion would, in fact, give you more freedom than any other editor. Your suggestion implies that before anyone can revert your edits they have to first convince you of bias. This further shows that you're fundamentally not getting it. Editors add stuff, other people revert it. Discussion ensues. No one has the right to say, "My edits are good, so before you revert them, you need to discuss them and persuade me I'm wrong, first."
Once you're unblocked, you are, of course, welcome to take this up somewhere (WP:AN or WP:ANI; probably the former, since this isn't really an "incident") to get more input. Should the community show that I'm misusing my admin tools in this case, I'll apologize, but until that time, expect the same treatment from me. Furthermore, if, after a period of time (a few months or so) you can show that your suggestions are regularly accepted (or, at least, not rejected for reasons connected with your COI), then I'll likely be willing to alter my stance. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion is clear but not likely to be applied to this 1-1 deadlock/empasse. There's only another one editor that will never agree. Up to now I see only one solution: being helped by other non-problematic editors in reviewing the new article (not the edit-warred talke page), its previous stable version, keep an eye to 'emulation objectivness' only and tell you that there's no concern in alter your stance. Blackvisionit (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Another consideration is that COI is only a suggested guideline and we're not in a court room speaking legalese. Saying it with plain words, all that talk-page flaming would have come out even if disputing editors were speaking about their pokemon collection! Flame was given birth by the editing attitude not by the content. WP is always looking to get editor to cooperate at their maximum: I have shown practical compliance with COI discussion results but currently getting no good faith assumption; problematic user - still witchhunting (deleted) with polite and legalese words - is, by misterious ways, given credit to be objective and cooperative. Blackvisionit (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
His expressing a concern about your editing, does not constitute "witchhunting". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous edit is a self-explaining example. Users is very proactive in sending other users the red hand symbol, usually labelled with kind and cooperative messages. However the message is very off-topic since this section only aims in clarifying the COI accident and how it has been misunderstood because of (deleted). Rolling back to facts, here a translated example, readable by everybody:

  • X says: digits from 0 to 9 are these and get involved in COI because designed digit 2
  • Y feels very concerned even when X removed itself all direct and indirect mentions to 0..9
  • X restart with somthing very neutral and basic like 'digits are natural numbers'
  • Y unceasingly witchhunts stating that anything coming from X is biased

Blackvisionit (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the above complaint, only some of those constitute personal attacks, I think (though the exact definition varies from editor to editor). Saying you (deleted) may have a COI isn't a personal attack, though it might become disruptive if Blackvisionit continued w/o providing evidence. The "dense" comment is a link to a Wikipedia essay title "Don't be dense"; some editors find such links to be attacks, while others don't. Accusing you of stalking is alright given that you yourself used the term (though, Blackvisionit, I'll point out that (deleted) specifically stopped a certain behavior so as to not stalk you). However, calling you a troll, saying that your behavior is intentionally harassing, and calling you a problematic user are all at least in the realm of personal attacks. Blackvisionit, if you believe that there is something wrong with (deleted)'s editing behavior, you should take it up at the appropriate forum (based on your complaints, probably, WP:WQA) rather than continuing to lob complaints without substantiation. It's fine to disagree with (deleted)'s edits, but you should refrain from making negative characterizations of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's still misterious, to me, why you find it normal acting the way the problematic users does and I should only be a passive recipient. Blackvisionit (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Being problematic is an editing/writing attitude self-explained by diffs, not a 'name'. Previous You have been instructed translated from legalese becomes I actively used to ask esomebody else to act against you, since I don't like to get too much exposed. Feel free to add the red hand symbol if you like it :) Blackvisionit (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what you are supposed to do, since you started first.
  • If you publicly withdraw COI on User:Qwyrxian's talk I'll withdraw immediately after
  • I have the right to go on editing as any other user - being fully conscious of what has to be avoided

It's very difficult, being problematic, to understand that as a matter of fact you are messing up WP adding problems and deadlocks. WP itself is a quiet place. Blackvisionit (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Repairing broken links (caused by maintenance (deleted) is standard WP kindness and good practice. Blackvisionit (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Raging after a standard link-fix on your page and feeling free to modify whatever you want on this page (deleted) is another being problematic self-explaining example. Blackvisionit (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)