User talk:Eff Won

Welcome!

Hello, Eff Won, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mjroots, and thanks for the tips. There's a lot to read there, but I've already found some useful help there! Eff Won (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Eff Won! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean's quote

Please note that the quote from Grosjean in the season report on the 2012 Formula One season page was placed that way for a reason. There are several other quotes in the race report section that deal with major episodes of the 2012 season - such as criticisms of the Pirelli tyres, accusations that Red Bull's car was illegal in Monaco and now Grosjean's ban. They were placed in quote boxes because they are notable enough to be mentioned, but their inclusion in the text of the race report (as you have proposed or this one) breaks up the flow of the sections. It takes the focus away from the events of the race, and pushes the word count over the ~350 per section that the section has been written to. That is why Grosjean's quote - and the others - have been put in quote boxes: so that they can get coverage without interrupting the readability of the section they apply to, and so that they can be included without using up words in each subsection. Your reasons for changing them are purely cosmetic.

Please do not revert these again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Eff Won (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

This [1] is unacceptable. You are bound by assume good faith like everyone else here, and an attitude which includes accusing other users of "irrational hatred" is going to ensure that your stay on Wikipedia will be a short one. I suggest you redact or remove your comments on Prisonermonkeys' talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith of a user who ruthlessly erased my first edit here on Wikipedia, an edit that I was proud of for the value I thought it added to the article, using the edit summary "we don't do that", when it transpires that we actually DO do that, or did, in both the 2010 and 2011 articles until that very same editor systematically and without discussion or proper explanation removed identical content from them on June 11, 2012. That same editor then got all indignant in the talk page discussions I raised about it and has been misrepresenting the state of the article and the content I tried to add and offering genarlly weak excuses for the removal of my modest contribution; presumaby in an attempt to drum up support for his stand against me. Eff Won (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I am not joking. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to the relevant place. Casting aspersions against him on a talk page will simply get you blocked. Nobody cares if you find it "difficult" to assume good faith - do it anyway. If you think he has a stand against you, consider how it looks from the other angle. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is "the relevant place" then? Do you support his treatment and my first edit, even if you were not aware of his behaviour at the 2010 and 2011 articles? "Blocked"? For exposing inexcusable behaviour? Who would support or enact such a "block"? Eff Won (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI - be sure to include links to what you've said about him. My own view of it is that you had no consensus, nor even anyone agreeing with you about the 2012 page, yet you saw fit to roll out your preferred version to the 2010 and 2011 pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Where was the "consensus" to eradicate all trace of the useful links from the 2011 and 2010 pages, more than 6 months for one and over 18 months for the other, after the end of the respective seasons? Eff Won (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not having this out here with you. The consensus existed for the format of season articles after a discussion involving a number of editors. As I say, try ANI for your problem with Prisonermonkeys. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on either of the talk pages about removing the calendar table links in June 2012. In fact there is no discussion after June 2011 on the 2010 talk page and nothing after January 2012 on the 2011 talk page. And that is where it should be if it is to be seen by interested editors. Eff Won (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have a consensus on display anywhere that someone might want to read it. FYI, it's here. A proposal was made to change it - no consensus = no change. Filed that ANI report yet? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing there in that January 2012 discussion, about condensing the 2012 calendar table, sanctioning the mass destruction of links that took place 6 months later on the 2010 and 2011 pages. Eff Won (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody condensed the table. The consensus was to leave the 2012 table as it is, and that rolls out across the other season articles. There was explicitly no support for linking race reports in the calendar. You have no consensus to put the links back, so I suggest taking them out again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The January 2012 discussion was about condensing the calendar table in the 2012 article, nothing else, and was rejected. Five months later in June 2012, an editor removed the specific GP links from the 2010 and 2011 articles, with no discussion and no explanation. Yesterday I restored those links because they have value and are in compliance with the guidelines on links. I can't see any reasoned discussion or consensus anywhere that they should be absent. Eff Won (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, this nonsense ends now

Not every edit requires consensus. That does not mean that any editor can do what they want, but if someone makes a bold edit and there are no objections, then there is no problem. If there is a problem, then a discussion is required and consensus is needed to go forward. If no consensus is reached, then the article goes back to where it was before the changes were made.

As of a few days ago, before you appeared, there was no problem with the way the 2012 article stood, or any other past seasons that were changed to be similar. A discussion likely did take place regarding the links in the calendar, but I do not have it off hand, all I know is that it happened a while ago. And even if a discussion did not take place, no objection was made to Prisonermonkey's edits as far as I can tell.

I specifically recall telling you that since you appear to be new, and in response to your actions on the 2012 article, you should not be making bold edits, AKA calm down. Now here we are, a day later, and you're making equally bold changes to the article, and once again engaged in an edit war with multiple editors. What part of calm down did you fail to comprehend? I also specifically told you that you should discuss changes before making them, considering you had already tripped over such a foolish move once in your brief time here. And now, because people are having to deal with your bold moves made against better judgement, you start accusing people on conspiring or having alternative motives.

So, here is where you stand right now:

• Edit warring stops now, you have already crossed the line of what is a blockable offense. It is as simple as this, if you continue to revert other people's edits or make sweeping changes to articles because you feel like it, you will be reported and blocked by an administrator, it's not even a questionable matter anymore. This warring is more destructive to the articles than any sort of benefit you think your edits make.
• Accusing any other editor of anything stops now. No insults, no degradation, no accusations of underhandedness, nothing to imply that there are personal motives behind other people's edits, because at the moment you have not a single shred of evidence to support other than that people disagree with you. This too is a blockable offense. Discuss the particulars of this matter, not the editors or their reasonings. This includes making accusations on editors' own talk pages.
• If you wish to discuss policies on Wikipedia, I suggest giving other editors the benefit of links to the specific guidelines you feel back your claims.
• If you have any further suggestions or wish to discuss any matters regarding the layout of Formula One pages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One is where you should be putting your ideas forth and arguing your case, not in edit summaries. The majority of editors to F1 pages watch that page, and can be involved in discussions, and this is where most consensus is made. Decisions made there can also more easily involve a variety of articles at once, instead of concentrating on a singular season.

Now I will say it once more. Calm. Down. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds like an intolerant overreaction to the addition of 2 useful links to a table. It was not a "bold edit", it was a common sense application of hyperlinks as reccommended in the guidelines. That an editor with a history of removing such links reacted irrationally and deleted them again with no reasonable explanation is more of a reason to replace them than to leave them gone.

You say there was no problem with the article before I edited it; I disagree, it lacked the appropriate links in the calendar table, which is why I edited it. If a discussion resulting in a decision never to include intuitive links in the calendar table then I would like to see it, but to say "A discussion likely did take place" is not terribly compelling now, is it?

Although you repeat it again, adding appropriate links is not bold. The written words are not changed, just made more useful to computer savvy readers who wish to navigate to more specific articles. So I do not accept your criticism, on that basis.

Get. Real. Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For all your familiar, unconvincing bluster, you always miss the same thing. You saying that you don't accept someone's (or anyone's) criticism, and that your unpopular edits are simple common sense, is meaningless. Nobody agrees with you, hence what you want won't happen. Either accept it and move on, or wrangle on until the inevitable block - the choice is yours. You're only accelerating towards the latter when you antagonise people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody admits to agreeing with me, no. That doesn't mean they don't though. I get a strange vibe and sense a strange atmosphere in these "discussions". I can't quite put my finger on it, but I can't help feeling that whatever I say or do will never be agreed with and will always be vehemently opposed, whether it is good or bad. What's with the the "block" threat thing? Who here has the power to enforce a "block", and upon what? Eff Won (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not simply been adding two links to a table. You did that in your first edit, but every further edit after that has been edit warring, being destructively bold, and accusing other editors of misdeeds. It was not a bold edit when you made it the first time, but your continued attempts to press your opinion on the articles through edit warring has been bold, especially as you have been told repeatedly to stop.

The editor does not have a history, there was a group consensus to remove the links and he was the editor to make the change. A reasonable explanation was offered to you by multiple editors, you have simply deemed it "unreasonable". This does not make it a fact. The same goes for what you feel is appropriate, as there is absolutely no requirement anywhere in Wikipedia policy that states your edit must be made to an article.

Here is real - your edits have been malicious and you are closing in on possible reprimand for your actions. Certainly an administrator will be able to tell you if your opinions on reasonable, both in the actions of others and yourself, are correct. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made a very few, modest edits. I haven't vandalised the articles or removed content from them. I've just tried to add 2, and restore 2 columns of useful links where they were sorely missing, and tried to merge a duplication of information and and clumsy standalone quote into the prose of a paragraph. And for my trouble I have been virtually ostracised and made to feel wholly unwelcome.

You say there was a consensus to remove the links from the calendar tables, but neither you or others alluding to such a thing, has been able to show it to us. You say reasonable explanations were offered - I disagree - they were largely unreasonable, unfounded, misleading and even false assertions.

I may have reacted to the provocation of one particularly single-minded user in kind, but I am finding my feet, and felt threatened, even intimidated by him. But nothing I did was malicious or for any purpose other than improving the articles. You now appear to be threatening some sort of discipliniary sanctions. I see others are throwing shit and making grossly exaggerated allegations of what I am supposed to have done, presumably in the hope that some of the shit will stick and my name will be smeared, that reflects more on their characters than on mine though.

Eff Won (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been nothing modest about your editing behaviour. You had spat in the face of consensus, engaged in multiple edit wars, attempted to branch discussion to at least four different pages, and made grossly unwarrented accusations against those who are more experienced than you. Attempting to branch the discussions to the 2010 and 2011 articles is malicious, and you know damn well what you were doing when you made these edits. The literal text or coding that you have changed in the articles is only a minor point of the problem you have created.

Consensus is here. You were shown this link on Talk:2012 Formula One season, but you seem to have dropped the debate section where this link was shown.

If you are going to accuse anyone here of lying, then I suggest you start supplying evidence immediately.

Edit warring is a blockable offense. We don't need any opinions, allegations, or to throw shit for an administrator to block you for it. The only person smearing your name is you. Unfounded accusations of lying and conspiracies by editors to subvert your actions is also a simple blockable offense. You could be arguing with anyone on Wikipedia and the result would still be the same for you. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about "consensus", yet have failed to provide evidence of any. You provided a link to this discussion, which was mostly another user attempting to reason with our friend here, in a similar way to that which I have recently attemped, and being met with the same obstinate refusal to see reason as I was here. The points are almost identical and the cause was almost identical - a unilateral removal of the links. Two other users also chipped-in, one supported keeping the links, the other was non-committal, wavering between remove/kepp, so it could hardly be described as a consensus for removal!!! I do not recognise most of the rest of what you accuse me of, and where is the edit warring that you are alluding to? What exactly is your agenda here? Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Claiming there is no evidence when you were just provided with a link makes this entire discussion moot. If you do not believe there was consensus to remove the links in the first place, that is fine, but it is also moot as the article has remained this way for over a year. Keep in mind that the user you claim to be similar to was later banned from Wikipedia for his behaviour and editing tactics. And yes, we have noticed the similarity between the editing and arguing tactics of you and De Facto. Further, please do not confuse "reasoning" with "opinion". If you think we are just pulling our arguements out of our asses, then this discussion is never going to go anywhere.

The discussion now currently has no consensus and thus the article remains as is by default. This doeos not mean it reverts back to the mid-2011 status.

That you ignore the fact that you were edit warring, and that you assume I have an agenda means that this conversation no longer serves a purpose. There is no consensus therefore your desired edits will not be made. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a consensus to delete the links. The old discussion linked to does not result in a consensus to do anything, no matter how often you, or anyone else, insists that it does. It's not that I don't believe there was a consensus, it's that, despite several assertions that there is one, and several requests for evidence of such, there has been no evidence to support the assertions ever provided. The 2010 and 2011 articles still had the links less than six months ago, at which time they were removed without even discussion, let alone consensus, and by the same user who had apparently done it before, been challenged about it, and not achieved a consensus for it then either. I call that sneaky opportunism, hoping no-one would notice. The last long-term stable condition of those two articles was with the links in place, and without a consensus to remove them, given the controversial history and previous attempts to remove them, they should be restored.

And please drop the intimidatory rhetoric. That someone who disagreed with the removal, with no supportable reason, of those links, as I do, was later banned, does not persuade me that I am wrong to stick to my principles of fairness and decency over this. I honestly now believe, particularly because no-one can find evidence to support a contrary view, and have indeed provided evidence to support my view, that the links were removed in an underhand way, so should now be replaced.

I perceive from your tone change over the consensus assertions that you are beginning to realise that I might have a case here, but are not yet prepared to support me in this. It now appears to be an in-group - out-group conflict. Eff Won (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is, once again, out of touch with reality. Take your evidence to WP:ANI. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won, I would advise you to seriously consider how you present yourself to other editors around here. Some of your actions and your attitudes since registering with Wikipedia have been deplorable. And yet at every turn, you have been met with nothing but civility and courtesy at every turn. Some of your actions have been more than enough to deserve a block from editing, and the administrators are well aware of what you have been doing. I suggest you tone down the aggression, and take the time to consider the idea that other editors may raise valid points instead of assuming that they are all idiots and you are the only one capable of making a well-informed decision. Perhaps you could even consider the notion of working with us, rather than trying to inflict your ideas and opinions upon us. Because if you continue the way you have been, your days here are numbered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, having witnessed your behaviour towards me, I do not respect your judgment or your advice. I would, in turn, advise you to examine your own behaviour before making the the holier than though sermons. Do you honestly believe that your behaviour to me has been either civil or courteous? And how long have you been editing Wikipedia? If either one of us deserves a "block" over this, it certainly isn't me. Some others here have been more restrained, even gracious, and I respect them for that, and am sorry if I have been a bit like a bull at a gate in the way I have gone about things. However, we must all co-exist now, so let's try and respect each other, shall we? Eff Won (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour towards you has been far more courteous or civil than your behaviour towards us. You have shown no respect for anyone's judgement or advice, and in fact have gone out of your way to do the exact opposite of any advice given to you. I can honestly say that no one you have been involved with in this problem over the past few days feels that you have shown any sort of respect, as you have flat out insulted damn near everyone here. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The "judgements", based on the "evidence" thus far provided, that I am flouting "consensus" don't deserve any respect. They are unfounded. My edits were condemned, I asked why, I was served-up a cart-load of bullshit, threats and bad faith allegations, and you now have the audacity to complain about my behaviour in those circumstances? I now believe that you are trying to bait me, so I am not going to bite anymore. Eff Won (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your case to Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that the best way to play this do you think? It sounds a bit like resorting to foul play, rather than logic in an attempt to win a debate. No one respects a snitch, after all. Eff Won (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Eff Won, I don't understand why you don't go to ANI, like I told you two days ago. You clearly feel you have a very strong case, and nobody there is connected with any of us, so your fear of the cabal working against you is unfounded there. I don't think anyone else here is going to tell you anything you want to hear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You sound to enthusiastic about that idea, as you did the other day. I smell a rat. I suspect that you know something about going there that I haven't encountered yet, and probably not something that would benefit from. I'll bide my time. On the other hand, if you have come round to my way of thinking now, feel free to go there yourself. Eff Won (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You smell a rat? Hmmm... it's fair to say nobody here is going to come around to your way of thinking. Whatever the hell that is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no longer a debate, therefore there is nothing to win. There is simply your behaviour and your belief in our behaviour. You have made numerous claims of underhandedness, rules breaking, collusion, control of articles, and now apparently "rats", and other unbecoming behaviours, and your biggest concern is losing respect as a snitch? This makes your accusations worth fuck all. If you feel that you should avoid staking a claim against other editors who are apparently breaking rules, because you feel it might harm your case, then you have no case.

In other words, you are now a complete waste of time. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, and I do not believe in involving outside powers to force a result. External, artificial, discipline breeds resentment and will inevitably lead to contempt of and disrespect for the system. It is always more productive to thrash these things out between the involved parties, and a more amicable outcome will almost inevitably be the result, in my experience, in other fields, at least. Eff Won (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not using the system in place to deal with such situations and allow for outside perspective from uninvolved parties shows completely respect for the system... Clearly, your system of not involving anyone else has been productive so far! You don't believe a word we say, and we're tired of dealing with you. Production! The³5₉ (Talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2012 Formula One season. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This warning template seems to sum everything up succinctly. You are in a content dispute and have no consensus, therefore you should not be editing the article. Feel free to seek outside assistance in this dispute. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive in what I was doing there, it was pure housekeeping. I was removing duplicate links from the prose as required by WP:REPEATLINK. I was careful to leave the duplicates in the tables and picture captions for now, pending discussion. I am not in a content dispute about the duplicate links, I am in a content dispute about missing links. Please explain your allegation in more detail, with reference to the applicable policies and guidelines. Eff Won (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are in the middle of a discussion over the very policies you have named. There is no consensus for your edits, therefore you should not be editing the article. Period. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute, it a guideline compliance discussion. I pointed out some of the non-compliances. No-one has disagreed about the duplicates. I am now (or at least was) being proactive in doing something about it. Why don't you help, rather than hinder that process? Eff Won (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has not reached a conclusion. As already pointed out, your view of "compliance" seems out of touch with reality. Further, your original edits on Wikipedia were to add more links to the article, so which is it now: Less links, or more links? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has added anything there in 20 hours. When do discussions "reach a conclusion"? Do you think 22 hyperlinks to the same article demonstrates compliance? Can't you see that we need less duplicate links and more missing links? Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a topic for debate. And hence since you have a debate, you have no consensus, and you should not be editing the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Eff Won, you're new here. In my experience the chaps at WP:F1 have their way of doing things re F1-related articles. Your best bet over this issue is to raise a request for comment at WT:F1. I understand that you are actong in good faith, but for now please desist from multiple unlinking, otherwise you may get blocked. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, do you? Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A friendly voice at last! Have you seen this kind of reaction from them there before? Eff Won (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have raised an RFC as you suggested, thanks. Eff Won (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi, I notice you're new here and have come up against what may appear to be somewhat of a brick wall in the form of existing editors. I can empathise with your situation as I have been in a similar position, however I think you may have been unlucky in who chose to pull you up on your "mistake" - it's fair to say that some editors are a little more forgiving than others! That's not to say he doesn't have a point, and it's also not to say that he couldn't have phrased his replies better. As I've said on the WP:F1 talk page, we're not here to start arguments that escalate to about 10 comments on each side, we're here to improve WP:F1. If someone reverts your edits, it's almost certainly because they believe the article was better before the edits. Now, I know exactly how it feels to put a lot of time and effort into an edit that ends up being discarded because the consensus is that it's unnecessary - it feels like your efforts aren't valued and can put you off making further edits. Like I say, there are two sides to this dispute - personally, I would say that a consensus had been reached against your edits (and may do again in the discussion I've started at WP:F1 talk), however I would have liked to have seen the editor that reverted them give you a bit more of an explanation for why (instead of, as you say, just saying "we don't do that"). What I will say, Re: your comment about WP:F1 having different "rules" to other sections of Wikipedia, is that different sections will have their own focuses, which can mean that a variety of things are different. In F1, for example, there are a lot of stats and figures, which means that it's practically impossible to find an article that comes under WP:F1 that doesn't have a table in it. So the "rules" to which you refer (which are actually guidelines - doesn't make them any less useful, though) can be slightly different to accommodate this. So I would advise you to be more accepting of consensus if and when it's reached - but it is also down to other editors to explain why your edits are reverted. I won't get all hardball here, but I would say anyone who edit-wars consistently (that includes both sides of a dispute) risks alienating other editors, and makes it less likely for them to be willing to help you make good edits and articles, which is, after all, why we're all on here. Allypap81 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Allypap81, for your efforts to understand and diffuse the problems I have caused, your words of wisdom are very much appreciated. Eff Won (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I can do no better than the default description, "The Resilient Barnstar may be given to an editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile." Your good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are appreciated. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

When you find the time, have a bit of WikiFUN. Editor Pluma created a page of FUN STUFF for his adoptees. Have a look and take a bit of time to build your user page. It's editing practice with a purpose. For now, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the accolade! It put a smile on my face for the first time since being slapped down after my first edit. :-) Eff Won (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You were not "slapped down". At all. Your edits were taken in good faith, but they were reverted because they went against an established consensus. You weren't to know that at the time, but there is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says an editor's first edits must always be accepted. For someone so familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am surprised you did not know that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My first edit was, as I said, slapped down. And it was slapped down by you, just 16 minutes afer I made it, and with the brusque edit summary: "Undid revision 510402759 by Eff Won (talk) we don't do that". You gave no reasoned explanation as to why "we don't do that". It looked to me like precisely the sort of thing we DO do, millions of times over, and throughout Wikipedia, which is why I put it there in the first place. Eff Won (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the timing really matter to you? It wouldn't have mattered if I'd seen those edits sixteen minutes, sixteen hours or sixteen days after you posted them - with the lack of any consensus supporting your edits, I would have reverted them. As for the edit summary, "we" refers to WP:F1, "don't do" refers to the established consensus, and "that" was the practice of linking to speciic pages in the table. If you are really so thin-skinned that the manner in which your edits were reverted still bothers you a week after they were reverted, then I suggest you do yourself a favour and stop editing Wikipedia. If you're going to behave like this every time your edits get reverted, then you're not going to last long. Edits get reverted all the time, and I don't see anybody complaining about it a week later. Stop taking it all so damn seriously and move on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the timing doesn't matter to me; no, I'm not thin-skinned. What does bother me though is your attitude and behaviour, and the lack of any apparent remorse from you for it. You seem intent on blaming the victim, to save your own skin perhaps; to the point it appears, that you will sink to any level to do it; incuding misrepresentation of the facts, context and circumstances of the events that we have been discussing, both here and elsewhere. Are you always like that - comments by other, and the discussions pointed to elsewhere, tend to suggest to me that you may. Does the Wikipedia community respect and encourage that sort of behaviour? If it does, I'm not sure I want to be involved. Eff Won (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should I show remose? It was an edit that went against an established consensus, and like any edit that goes against established consensus, I reverted it.

Despite what you may think, you are not a victim. And for you to insist that you are contradicts your claim that you are not thin-skinned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately slow to understand? I'm not complaing that my edit was reverted, I'm not complaining that the reason, as it now transpires, was wrong (although I'm still not convinced with your assertion about a consensus), as I am not thin-skinned. What I am pointing out is that the way you performed the reversion was not conducive to happy coexistence and your behaviour since has been, inexcusably, even worse. I am the victim of the rude and unnecessary way that you executed the reversion and your behaviour since. Are you with us now? Eff Won (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to continue to bleat, moan, whinge and cry "I'm a victim" because someone (correctly) thought your first edit was not what we needed? Are you going to require an apology every time someone reverts you in a way you consider unfriendly? If that's the case, Wikipedia is really not the place for you. Your work, if you ever do any, is subject to whatever treatment the Wikipedia community see fit to hand out. And you have to suck it up. If you don't want your edits to be flatly reverted by someone who thinks they're shit, then don't make those edits. I get reverted, Prisonermonkeys gets reverted, everyone gets reverted. Sometimes we don't like the way it happens. Tough. Move on. If you do ever decide to actually do something on Wikipedia, it will be taken on its merits. Otherwise, I suspect you're very close to being completely ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately slow to understand too? Read my reply to Prisonermonkeys above. This is nothing to do with whether my first edit was good or bad. I haven't asked for an apology because I was reverted in an unfriendly way, although it's interesting that you see it was unfriendly too. In fact, I haven't asked for an apology for anything. The problem I am drawing attention to is the ruthless, rude and unexplained way that the first edit of a newbie was trashed, and Prisonermonkeys's continued sanctimonious attitude. Even if it was worthless shit, there are civil and incivil ways of dealing with the first contribution of a newcomer. Seasoned editors, apparently, are more accustomed to Prisonermonkeys's problem. Eff Won (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, be careful with making statements like your first sentence. I do not take kindly to my good faith being questioned, or my intelligence. Secondly, do not attempt to put words in my mouth, and particuarly do not twist my words to suit your preference. I consider Prisonermonkeys' reversion of your edit to be neither incorrect nor unfriendly. I would have made a similar reversion myself had I seen it first. As for the rest of your post, I refer you to my previous post. If you don't want an apology, your behaviour is nothing short of gratuitous bleating. You've drawn attention to your perceived victimhood, now it's over. If you have a problem with Prisonermonkeys, your choice is to either go to ANI and continue to whinge there, or move on. I'm abandoning this ridiculous discussion now, and I suspect Prisonermonkeys will do the same. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked the obvious question, which is nothing to do with intelligence. But you know that don't you. Me putting words in your mouth? That's rich from someone who also has misrepresented what I have said/written/done above and elsewhere (deliberately I can only assume). Let's hope both you, and Prisonermonkeys now realise we have heard enough from you on this, and that it's time to let it rest and move on. Eff Won (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"It's time to let it rest and move on."

Oh, that's rich, coming from the guy who has not been able to move on from his first edit being reverted for over a week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you still haven't read, or at least comprehended, my point. Or is it that you fully agree with what I'm saying but cannot admit it? You ignore again my reassurance that the problem I am drawing attention to is, not that my edit was reverted, but the ruthless, rude and unexplained way that the first edit of a newbie was trashed, and your continued sanctimonious attitude and persistence in misrepresenting the events.

Why do you continue to ignore all that, and keeop trying to prolong or exacerbate the argument by continually misrepresenting what I have, or have not, done? Could it very possibly be that you realise that everthing I have written is actually spot-on, and you are not prepared to man-up to it and either acknowledge that you were wholly to blame for this sorry episode, or face the consequences?

In fact your feined indignation is now so transparent, that I would not be surprised if other WP:F1 members start, despite the natuaral tendency for the in-group to stand together against an outsider, to wonder (or even realise) what your ulterior motives are and start, albeit uncomfortably, to give you ever less gentle hints to drop it before it is too late. Eff Won (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I haven't comprehended your point, it's because you haven't actually made one. The only thing you've done for the past week is go "WWAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!" on every talk page you edit. What, exactly, do you want to happen here? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A warm-hearted and honorable individual decided to show appreciation for the way I was determined to learn from my mistakes and from the criticism offered by others in my first few days as a Wikipedia volunteer. I thanked them and made a throw-away remark about the rough ride I'd been given right from my first edit. You then waded in, in a very undignified manner, to rudely contradict what I had said, and to push down our throats your jaundiced view of recent events. You ask what I want here - I want you to accept that the biggest mistakes that have been made in relation to my modest contributions to date, have been made by you, not by me. Eff Won (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to apologise, because I have done nothing wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask, or expect, you to apologise (you even complained about that). We'll have to agree to differ about whether you have done anything wrong. I recognised my wrongdoings, tried to do something about them, and even got given a barnstar for my efforts. You believe that you are beyond reproach, and appear determined to browbeat us, using every method at your disposal - both above and below board - into accepting that. We'll have to leave it at that then. Eff Won (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reposting messages on article talk page

Eff Won, please do not take messages that I have added here and re-post them on article talk pages. I consider it to be very rude. If you feel that I raise points that need to be discussed by the wider editing community, please take the time to ask for my permission to replicate said messages on the article talk pages before you do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rude? That's rich coming from you. And you say to ask you first; to be ignored as I was when I suggested moving the "Grosjean's quote" discussion above? I can see though why you'd prefer that the other 2012 Formula One season editors didn't see how petty and unnecessary you are being about my edits and especially now your stance over the hyperlinks in the section headings has been comprehensively undermined by them. Eff Won (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, it's clear that you don't have permission to move Prisonermonkeys' talk page comments (or mine, incidentally), so you can't do it. If you ask, and get ignored, that means you can't do it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if a similar situation occurs again, I'll just quote it verbatim where it belongs and delete it from here. Thanks for your advice. Eff Won (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the same as moving his comment, and I do not advise it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule against quoting what other editors have written on talk pages, or otherwise why do you not advise it? Eff Won (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's pointy - there's no actual need to quote him, is there? He's asked you not to move his comments, and to try to wriggle around that request will inevitably be seen as uncivil. I suspect you would end up at ANI and it would not look good. You should either respond to him in the place where he has started the discussion, not respond at all, or ask him for permission to quote him. If you want to make a point elsewhere, you can easily do so without copying his comments, and he can comment there if he wants. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that placing the discussion where those interested in the article would be more likely to see it "pointy". I would say it made good sense. I can't see any problem in quoting why a discussion has been raised either, or that it could be interpreted as uncivil. I'll think some more about that one. Eff Won (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, honouring my request is just plain good manners. If you think something I have said warrants further discussion, then please ask before hand, and tell me why you want to take the discussion elsewhere. If you make a reasonable case, I won't say no. But that doesn't mean you just skip asking altogether and take it upon yourself to re-post those messages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You even want me to ask before I start a discussion now? Eff Won (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start a discussion on the subject without resorting to posting my messages from your talk page in the discussion as you start it. If you want to repost my messages, please ask for permission first. If you do not receive my permission, you are still well within your rights to start a discussion - you just can't copy and past my messages over to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When you are reverted

When you make an edit and someone reverts you, that's the time to start a discussion. What you don't do is revert to your preferred version and then tell someone else to discuss it. That's edit warring. It goes back to the stable version of the intro, shared by every race article on Wikipedia. WT:F1 is the place for that discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, if the edit wasn't simply reverted but was changed a second time, and without discussion, where do we stand then? I think it's fair enough to revert back to the first change and then start a discussion, or possibly revert it right back to where it started. Eff Won (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It goes back to the last stable version, and I've already done that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You have now for 2012 Italian Grand Prix, after first changing it to something else, and after I changed it again. But for 2012 Singapore Grand Prix you undid my changes and introduced a change of your own, in one go. Eff Won (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite true, is it? What I did was incorporate one of your changes while reverting the others, in an attempt to avoid you thinking I was "slapping you down". None of the changes on either article was my own. If you like, we can go back to the original. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You said you had already reverted them to "the last stable version", you hadn't. They were left as I say above. Eff Won (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is your problem with that, since it was your idea to link to the generic race article? Reverted now, and I won't bother to consider your feelings again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You did one thing, but said another, that's all. The link looks crap in the bold anyway, and is frowned upon in the base guidelines like that, but we can discuss all that in the article TP or in WT:F1. Eff Won (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your change in style of the opening sentence of those two race articles, WP:BEGINNING explains that "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." and "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." That means that the opening sentence needs to be a very basic statement that "The XXXX Grand Prix was a Formula One race held on X date at X circuit." There is no reason to say it in any other way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please move that discussion to the page in question, or to WT:F1. It is more appropriate there than here. Eff Won (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No. It stays here because it is aimed at you, not the wider WP:F1 editorship. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I, too, noticed the changes you made to the Italy and Singapore pages. These represent a fundamentally-different way of writing the article lead to what we have previously done, and you are certainly going to need a consensus from editors if you want it to go ahead. Please seek one before you make any further changes of this nature. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was being creative, trying to get the generic GP links in without breaking the rule about no links in the bold bit. Eff Won (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you read WP:BEBOLD. Creativity is by all means encouraged, but you should take note of this line:

Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted.

It's in big, bold font in the article lead. You can't miss it. If your bold edits are deleted, it is not an invitation to start edit-warring. Take it to the talk page to get a consensus. Anyone who is interested to see your proposal first-hand can look through the article history page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Chassis redirects

Hi Eff Won. I noticed your recent creation of Cooper T86 (as a redirect to Cooper Car Company) and Matra MS10 (as a redirect to Matra). FYI, the prevailing consensus at WP:F1 is against creation of such redirects, on the basis that it's considered more useful to have the redlink, as a clear indication to readers/editors that there's no dedicated article for that chassis type. Also noting that in many cases where the chassis article doesn't exist, we link the constructor and chassis separately, like this: Brabham BT39, so that a link to the constructor article is readily available. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi DH85868993. Message received, now let me try and understand it. I was following the pattern I found for another car, one of the Matras I think, but I can't find it now. But if It would have been better the other way around, I can accept that. Is that consensus listed in a list of consensuses anywhere by chance (I've not seem such things anywhere yet)? When you say "redlink", I guess you mean a link to an article that doesn't exist - I can't see an option though to delete the new, empty, articles that I created to render the links red again - do you know if there's a way to get rid of them? Thanks for the advice. Eff Won (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I found it - it was March 701 that I copied. I asked at the teahouse about deleting the empty articles and I think I found the way to do it, I just need something confirming. I found the answer to my redlink question too - at WP:REDLINK. Eff Won (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, I got them all deleted. Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Why exactly are you linking to articles that do not exist, and conceivably wont exist as the person is not that notable? Twice, I might add. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not notable? Eff Won (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on creating articles on Jean-Paul Colas or André Héchard? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Eff Won (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither is notable. HTH. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not notable? Eff Won (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not trying to be funny. Neither one of those drivers is notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

TPIAW: can you please explain what you mean by "notable" then, and why you think that neither are. Eff Won (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:N is a good place to start. These guys, whilst they appeared at Le Mans, don't have enough substance out there to form more than a short stub article, hence they fail WP:GNG etc. It's really not up to me to prove why they're not notable – it would be up to the article writer to prove that they are notable in the inevitable AfD that would ensue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Simply participating at Le Mans does not make someone notable, as Le Mans has a long history of attracting amateur drivers with large pocketbooks. As Le Mans does not have any real minimum requirements for drivers to participate, short of setting X amount of laps within Y amount of time in qualifying/pre-qualifying, nearly any Joe Shmoe can participate. Therefore, unless these two drivers have done anything notable outside of Le Mans, they are not notable enough for their own articles.

And really, if you are in fact considering making an article on these people, it should have been a simple Yes or No answer to the question. If you're not intending to create the article, or if the person doesn't inherently deserve an article, don't just randomly add wikilinks to articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the advice. Eff Won (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For your attention

[2] link you were after is here. --Falcadore (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, many thanks. Eff Won (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

...and this is getting ridiculous. If you want a change, propose it and try to obtain consensus. It's bloody obvious that consensus exists in the past versions of the articles, and you're way past AGF'ing. There will be no further warnings (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misunderstood my action there. I don't want a change; I just wanted a link (now helpfully provided by Falcadore) to the consensus given as a reason for the reversion of another editor (not of me). Eff Won (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What did it matter that you got the link? Atfer all, consensus appeared in all the previous articles. You were arguing vehemently that someone MUST provide it to you, or else. I've read it, and was ready to block you for violating a condition of your unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, but I didn't think I was being unreasonably or overly demanding. I've tried to explain on the 2013 talk page why I wanted it. I'm trying to understand the complex rules, conventions, culture, relationships and traditions that appear to be present in the F1 group. I haven't made many edits yet since you so graciously restored my editing privileges, and I am trying to ensure that if, or when, I do, that I don't upset the apple-cart - it seems to be a very finely balanced thing.

Did you see what happened when I tried to correct an image sizing anomaly in the 2012 Formula One season article? However, when someone else recently did similar fixes there was not a similar reaction to them - or reversions and demands for a consensus before the fixes could be accepted. To be honest, I still don't understand the reasons for the treatment that I receive. Eff Won (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not paying attention to the articles you edit: I'm paying attention to your actions overall and concerns/complaints that might be raised (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Eff Won. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 13:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thanks. Eff Won (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The thinnest ice

Give me one good reason why I should not bring up your behaviour here with an adminstrator. It was made perfectly clear to you that you are skating on the thinnest ice there is, and threatening to go to an adminstrator simply because you dislike an edit is tantamount to disruptive editing. You are correct in saying that there is no consensus for the edits I have made, but at the same time, there is no consensus for any other format. Threatening to get adminstrators involved unless your edits are preserved is a serious breach of disruption, and as you can see, the immediate response to your actions has been poor, to say the least. Furthermore, your attempts at characterising certain edits as controversial constitutes canvassing, specifically campaigning:

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

By doing so in your edit summary, you have presented this campaigning in such a way that editors have no opportunity to respond. Anyone who sees the history page will see what you refer to "controversial changes", and so will be inclined to revert them on sight to the version you want. This is entirely unacceptable, and I have half a mind to go straight to an adminstrator right now. The only thing stopping me is my ability to conduct myself in a civil manner.

So please, think long and hard about how you intend to respond to this message. It might just be the only thing saving you from getting yourself permanently banned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. Such phrasing and actions are aggressive, the exact opposite of assuming good faith, and threatening - and this project will very shortly be permanently protected from such behaviour. I think I'm being more than patient here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi BW, if you get a chance, look back at the history of the article, its talk page, PM's edits and particularly edit summaries and talk page contributions, and then look at my measured response. I think you will agree my actions were reasonable and proportionate. I have also commented below on the mistakes PM made in his contribution here.

If you have any other doubts about my commitment to AGF, or anything else, please do not hesitate to raise it. I am sure that I will be able to reassure you as to my value to the project. Did you see my first brand new article at: Gwenda Hawkes? What do you think of it? Eff Won (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's passable, though it needs considerably more work before it could be called anything more than that. It's only a rudimentary outline, and lacks detail. Like, for example, which acts led to Hawkes being mentioned in despatches? What were the circumstnaces surrounding her "little success" at Le Mans? One vague article does not excuse your repeated trangressions elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, in the finest traditions of Wikipedia, I will AGF here, and assume that you were acting in good-faith, but either misread or misunderstood my actions and what I wrote. Let me explain precisely what your misconceptions are...

You wrote: that I was "threatening to go to an adminstrator simply because you dislike an edit".

• I did not, ever, threaten to go to an administrator at all. I was merely bringing to your attention the fact that your repeated reversions (including these 4 within 24 hours: [3], [4], [5], [6]) may result in sanctions being brought against you (see WP:3RR for details of the sort of thing that could happen). It was supposed to be a friendly piece of advice, not a threat, and certainly no offence was intended.
• I did not, ever, express a dislike for the edit at all. I was simply worried that your repeated reversions of modifications by others, and always back to your own version, was fuelling an edit-war scenario. The content had stabilised, following a period of speculation and disagreement, after User:Anti-log updated the table with fully referenced car numbers. Yet you alone repeatedly seemed to act against the prevailing consensus by removing some of those reliably sourced numbers. And incidentally, I was not involved in the changes to that table at any point until I made a, fully summarised and fully explained, attempt to cool things.

You wrote that what I did was: "tantamount to disruptive editing."

• Not at all. It was a constructive and proactive attempt to nip a potential edit-war in the bud. You admit your version had no consensus, and it was for that very reason I believed you were in danger of igniting an edit-war by continually reverting to it.

You suggested that I was: "Threatening to get administrators involved unless your edits are preserved".

• None of my edits were involved (although I did contribute to the discussion on the talk page). Your reversions did not change any of my edits at all. I restored the table to the state it was at on 01:39 on 2 December, directly before the start of your chain of reverts, to a state that I had never been involved with. So: no, no and no again; I was NOT preserving anything I had created.

You then wrote: "your attempts at characterising certain edits as controversial constitutes canvassing, specifically campaigning""

• There is no question that your edits were controversial, or how would you characterise edits that several other editors objected to strongly enough to revert them (cf. [7], [8], [9], [10]) and which were challenged repeatedly on the talk page ([11], [12], [13])?

In short you have got it badly wrong; your allegations are based on misreadings and/or misunderstandings. And not only that, but your actions as a result of your mistaken understanding have put my future as a Wikipedia editor in serious jeopardy. Please review what I originally did, and why, and please reconsider your serious allegations. Eff Won (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If putting your future as an editor of Wikipedia at risk is the cost of stabilising the page, that's not a difficult decision to make. I am aware that you are blocked, but just in case you can read this, I'll address your concerns:

Threatening to go to an adminstrator

I did not, ever, threaten to go to an administrator at all. I was merely bringing to your attention the fact that your repeated reversions may result in sanctions being brought against you.

Yes, you did threaten administrator action. You characterised my edits as going against a consensus, when you knew perfectly well that no consensus had been obtained. Your passive-aggressive approach clearly implied that if you did not get your way, you would go straight to an administrator and try to get me blocked.

It was supposed to be a friendly piece of advice, not a threat, and certainly no offence was intended.

And yet, despite your supposedly-altrusitic intentions, you still managed to present yourself in an aggressive and disruptive manner.

I was simply worried that your repeated reversions of modifications by others, and always back to your own version, was fuelling an edit-war scenario.

Then you should have raised the issue either on the article talk page, or my talk page. You did neither. Instead, you decided to take drastic action and threaten adminstrator intervention. I took drastic action with my next edit, restoring a much older version of the page and requesting protection. Unlike your actions, mine were justified because of your documented history of disruption.

On being disruptive

It was a constructive and proactive attempt to nip a potential edit-war in the bud.

Other editors have called the potential for an edit war into question, and nobody else raised any objections to what I was doing. And do you know why they were doing that? It's because they trust me. They know that I have been editing long enough to be able to make a judgement call like that.

Your reversions did not change any of my edits at all. I restored the table to the state it was at on 01:39 on 2 December, directly before the start of your chain of reverts, to a state that I had never been involved with. So: no, no and no again; I was NOT preserving anything I had created.

No, you restored the table to the version that you felt was best, even if you weren't directly responsible for that edit you were reverting to. Once again, you have assumed that you knew best about the page, and undercut everyone else by not allowing for any dicussion to take place.

Campaigning

There is no question that your edits were controversial, or how would you characterise edits that several other editors objected to strongly enough to revert them

The edits you point to come from two editors who are not regular editors of the Formula 1 pages, and thus may have been completely unaware that there was any discussion going on before they restored those edits. And the other one you linked to was from an IP address with a history of irregular editing. Hardly an overwhleming opposition to my edits, wouldn't you say?

and which were challenged repeatedly on the talk page

Again, the edits you link to are insubstantial. All of the objections you link to are open-ended discussions, and all of them are debating different aspects of the table, with different reasons for opposing them. Not once did you address any of them on the talk page, and nor did you allow those discussions to run their natural course and come to a resolution. Instead, you took it upon yourself to revert the edits.

In conclusion

Please review what I originally did, and why, and please reconsider your serious allegations

I have reviewed what you originally did. I have reviewed why you did it. And I have reconsidered my actions. In doing so, I have come to the following conclusion: I was wrong. I could have, and probably should have handled this better. I should have gone to an administrator months ago and vehemently opposed the restoration of your editing privileges. You tried to convince everyone that you should be allowed back, but ever since you have, we've seen that nothing has changed. You have no assumed good faith. You have canvassed for support in seeking consensus. You have demanded explanations for every single edit you consider contentious, and slowed down the editing process by refusing to allow any progress on the page until you are satisifed that the editing is going in the right direction. You have ignored some editors, attacked others, and generally been disruptive. And at every turn, you've complained that you have been misunderstood and misread and misrepresented by every single editor you cross paths with. Somehow, every single person has misunderstood your intentions in the worst possible way on every single issue you raise. Well, if it looks like a duck, and if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then chances are that it's probably not a tiger.

So, if risking your future as an editor is the price of keeping the page stable, then consider it paid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for flagrant violations of the unblock restrictions that you agreed to. 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. - (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this?

Hey Eff Won, we have been implicated, along with others, in some sort of "investigation" going on here: "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto". I'm not sure what it is all about, but have asked there for clarification. Do you know anything about it, or know what, if anything, we should be doing about it? MeasureIT (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep you up to date. There is guidance here: "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims" to help with a defence against the claim, if you are planning to do that. MeasureIT (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How the Eff can this account defend itself against something it's already been blocked for doing in the past? Presumably you can see the block notice? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Does being "blocked" mean anyone can say what they want about you without you getting the chance to defend yourself against the accusation? Surely not. MeasureIT (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. He/she can bleat on about it here but it's old news – this account is a proven sock, and disruptive to boot. This account can't edit anywhere but here, where nobody gives a stuff. Nobody's fooled. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)