User talk:Thinker78 - Knowledge (XXG)

1660:

trolling or BLP violations takes ownership of that edit and is, by implication, endorsing it. You intentionally restored a minor troll’s disruptive edit, apparently to make a point. That by itself is not block-worthy in most cases unless you edit-war (which you were also doing), but your pursuit of some kind of justification is ill-advised, and creates a time-sink as you bounce from place to place seeking justice or retribution, scolding anybody who disagrees. I would probably not have blocked you, I having made the initial revert, in any case short of gross abuse, as the inevitable ensuing accusations of involvement become a distraction that isn't worth the time to refute, when other admins are looking in and can do what's necessary without giving you the drama you seem to be seeking. I think you're too interested in wiki-litigation and argumentation.

4114:- It is good (or at least not bad) for you that this long non-dialogue is on your talk page and not on a project page. What Z80Spectrum was blocked for is similar, carrying on at length about your own rightness. As I said about them, insisting that you are the judge of rightness may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative editing. As I said to Z80Spectrum, the guideline about talk page removal should be revised, but it appears that you were given advance notice that restoring troll posts by unregistered editors was disruptive. You may be a thinker, but telling an admin to read a policy again illustrates that you weren't thinking when you made that post. What you need to read is not a policy but an article, 3471:

command others to do whatever you want if what you want is not based on proper Knowledge (XXG) guidance. Kindly cite relevant Knowledge (XXG) policies, not random articles or essays. The fact that I have called you out and publicly opposed your candidacy for arbitrator makes your request the more so inappropriate. I have to mention also the absurdity of your request because if you see in my talk page, other editors routinely contact me to criticize me or to point out Knowledge (XXG) guidance. This is a normal way for editors to work out their differences and build Knowledge (XXG) using the consensus process. Also, editors sometimes point out Knowledge (XXG) guidance in article or other space.

3548:+1 to what ToBeFree said. I have been watching this entire situation since the case request filing and my view is you are essentially going to end up getting yourself blocked unless you change your behavior. It is considered in poor taste to quote policies verbatim to attempt to educate experienced editors who are already aware of such policies. A lot of these people have been here much longer than you and have much more experience. There are multiple ways of going about disputes and violations of guidelines and policies, but this is clearly the wrong path. If you don't listen to what others are telling you regarding this, you will end up banned by the community. 2765:. That's why I revoked your talkpage access. You can discuss any problems you see with my rejection of your request for unblock, and/or my revocation of talkpage access, with the admins at UTRS. It is not an inferior option to write to them and explain why you think you should be unblocked and/or have your tpa back. It won't be as public, that's all. UTRS admins, feel free to unblock and/or restore tpa without consulting me, if you think it appropriate. 1767: 253: 140: 2188: 153: 4593: 4547: 4501: 4455: 4409: 4363: 4317: 4271: 3001: 1189: 1091: 1045: 999: 953: 907: 772: 726: 680: 634: 588: 542: 390: 4171: 1413:@Thinker78: I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again. Regard that as avoiding disruptive edit warring if you like, but a more accurate assessment would be that it is to avoid the destructive effect on the community of such comments becoming common. If you have a point you would like to make about the article or whatever, make it, but don't edit war to restore nonsense from who-knows-who. 70: 469: 2323: 1919: 2791: 820: 1685: 3127:, seemed pretty pertinent to me. That it was framed with some boilerplate AGF template content is kinda irrelevant. (That said, lots of us make perhaps "over-protective" mistakes when it comes to IP-address editors adding/changing things without citing sources adequately or at all; mistakes definitely happen in that direction, and I've made some of those myself.) 86: 2475:. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page. 2037:. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page. 53: 4079:. That's probably it for me here. I didn't want to support a block against you without first explaining what it is I hope you'll change, out of gratitude for the many quality edits you've made. I hope there's some inner voice that's whispering that maybe you've been wrong and should accept some advice. If there is, I urge you to listen. 2741:@Thinker78: Please keep in mind that blocks are there to prevent disruption. After you are unblocked, I hope you will be careful not to restore obvious trolling to Knowledge (XXG), especially when experienced editors are telling you not to. I hope you agree that all this is not worth another, much longer block, right? — — 2290:. It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now if kowtow. That's how the system has always worked. No one has ever successfully argued their way out of a block. Further, consider that no other editor agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you were in the wrong, so maybe you really are 3602:?" without pointing to any policy or even mentioning the word "civility" does much larger wonders than "You've been uncivil in violation of policy X and here's a quote you should long be aware of, and if you reply in disagreement you get another policy quote you have already seen many times and are long aware of". 1621:. I think making Knowledge (XXG) a more welcoming environment per the civility policy and other Knowledge (XXG) guidance is not wasting my time or of editors respectful of others. In addition, you seem to forget that in Knowledge (XXG) there are long discussions even for the placement of a comma. Regards, 3628:

Therefore, with time, I came to the conclusion that although sometimes stating things in a snippet is proper and fine (many times I only make a brief edit summary without any other lengthy explanation), other times it is better to have a more lengthy explanation of one's rationale, including relevant

3597:

of policy pages is actually telling them anything new. Taking the live example from above, I am aware of the consensus policy, the dispute resolution policy and the administrator policy. Their existence is no surprise; a general request to read them entirely is absurd and obviously won't be followed.

3280:

I can see that in Knowledge (XXG) the situation is not that different. After all, Knowledge (XXG) is also run by people. In fact, now I think that even criticizing the hierarchy in Knowledge (XXG) can lead to arbitrary bans. But whatever, I simply would try further dispute resolution or spend my time

2563:

Finally, I am against undue censorship which is what motivated this whole dispute in the first place. Here in Guatemala where I live the government even used to torture people to death for discussing the wrong things or reading the wrong books. My mother actually disposed of all the books in my house

2512:

I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the diffs of my edits mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input for more clarity, regardless of whether it was in

2271:

Folks are mentioning WP:NOTTHEM because your unblock request focuses on the behavior of others rather than considering how your actions contributed to the situation. (Even if you may not agree with others actions, it's in your best interest to consider alternative perspectives and focus on the things

1496:

Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if

3326:

may be of related interest. WP (and WMF) has a systemic organizational-lifecycle problem, in which it is firmly stuck in an infantile "visionary" stage, dominated by software/tech people close to its founder, and not maturing into a public-interest NGO run by people experienced in the management and

2553:

The explanations I was provided about my reverts by editors in the thread of the dispute that generated these proceedings (named Chemtrails; above) could have been provided to me without any need of a block or any further issue. A discussion would have ensued and I would have respected the consensus

2504:

Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best

2066:

1868:

Please provide diffs of relevant instances of "forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. Also, the diffs of failing to listen. And again you were an involved editor that delved in a dispute so I believe you acted inappropriately in blocking me, specially when I questioned you and

3647:

3RR is a pretty specific policy section and an abbreviation of "three revert rule",* so the 3RR example does work. I agree that this can't be generalized to include any policy link and that just pointing to a big policy page (or even just a large section) may lead to confusion. What I was trying to

3616:

The reason why I quote verbatim many times is because precisely my years of experience in Knowledge (XXG). I can see that you have been around only since 2012. Maybe you have more edits but in any case I am basically the grandmother here. I was editing anonymously before registering since Knowledge

3359:

Interesting point. I do think this reflects the situation where many ips and new users are treated with undue intolerance, a measure of contempt, and not really in a welcoming manner. I mean if many admins don't treat collegially experienced editors, much less they may be inclined to do so with ips

2882:

I admire the principle under which you restored the talk page comment. To most editors, though, it's clear that this is a trolling comment - apart from anything else there's clearly nothing "racist" about calling chem-trails a "conspiracy theory". If it's not clear to you, even in retrospect, you

1704:

Our community so rarely smacks down ne'er-do-wells that we should celebrate it when they do. There is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Knowledge (XXG). While I get your point, I think it is unwise for you to defend

1472:

The fact that Bon Courage did not address the concerns I pointed out in my edit summary and even used incivility in theirs, made me revert them as well. Your characterization of my edits as edit warring also fails to assume good faith and mischaracterizes my record. I personally try to stick to a 1

1464:

The edit the ip user made in my opinion was not vandalism nor trolling. They made a request that the term "conspiracy theorist" be removed. I understand this term is considered pejorative among some people. They further stated it was "racist". The use of this word in my experience elsewhere is not

4051:

Then I would advise to modify the policies and guidelines that state it is acceptable to post notices in relevant talk pages, because they don't post the restriction you interpret. Which actually led to this unnecessary brouhaha because I based my posting such notices in said guidance. But I guess

2910:

Hi - Perhaps you can look into this matter. My Userpage has been "played with" without any record of the manipulation in the history. The images have been moved about repeatedly in recent months, but I have made no adjustments prior to these changes. When I manually restore the content, the images

2102:

of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. I simply provided my rationale for my previous revert, evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and complained about the threat of a block (which took me really by surprise). Therefore, I

1502:

I find it really rude from you that you completely ignore collegiality and my years of experience in the project when you immediately decided to threaten me with a block, when it is evident I did not make an arbitrary revert. I researched and cited relevant Knowledge (XXG) guidance for my reverts.

3470:

At this time, yours seem to be an arbitrary comment not based on Knowledge (XXG) guidance. You did not actually based your request in ANY Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline or at least you did not mention ANY such. The fact you are an administrator and arbitrator doesn't mean you can arbitrarily

2557:

I have to mention I had no plans whatsoever to continue reverting past the 2 times I had reverted because I am aware of 3rr. My record of not engaging in edit warring can speak by itself. Plus I have had for a while now a personal voluntary policy of trying to stick to a 1rr, and only sometimes I

1492:

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially

1362:

First, your assertion that I am at 3RR is false. I have reverted twice in all time in that talk page. Second, you for some reason also decide to ignore the civility policy and use an inappropriate adjective, namely the word "dumb" to refer to the post of the ip user. Third, as I stated in my edit

3620:

Sometimes when I briefly stated guidance in the form of "please keep WP:xpolicy in mind at Article Name", I found that editors misinterpreted what I say because oftentimes policies are at least several sentences long and other times are even pages long. Then they would think I was referring to a

3276:

You have a point. I was a union official for a few years and I know how management of large or small companies can behave in unfair, inappropriate and unprofessional ways. People in power in general do things just because they can if there are no enough checks and balances to incentivize them to

2669:

Normally a successful unblock request will take responsibility for the behavior that caused the block and promise to improve the behavior / not to repeat it. In this unblock request, are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by making them spend a bunch of time on a low

1822:

Kindly explain why you think I am making persistent disruptive edits and how you blocking me is appropriate being an involved editor in a dispute with another administrator and other editor. I wrote the reasons why the other administrator in my opinion had acted inappropriately in the Chemtrails

1735:

is an example of the former. In contrast, an accusation of racism thrown in your interlocutor's face is hardly a way of starting a productive discussion; rather, it's a show of displeasure with Knowledge (XXG), not an attempt at improving it. Such disruptive edits are normaly removed, as we have

1659:

And I would point out that reverting my removal of a trolling comment doesn't make me involved either - clear-cut vandalism and trolling are exempt from those considerations, and the comment that you restored was sufficiently absurd for that to apply. Anyone who intentionally restores vandalism,

2690:

TLDR: You just wanted to argue. If you want to just pick a fight with other editors, then you need to choose your battles more carefully. See my comment up the page - the idea that the comment you reverted was actually a serious recommendation for improvement to the encyclopedia is just absurd.

3785:

You didn't have any 'dispute' with me, and in any event the case request was not about a 'dispute' but (good grief) "Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals." I merely reverted some disruptive content that for some reason you had

3511:

I advise that you read the consensus policy, the dispute resolution policy, and the administrator policies. If someone is not adhering to Knowledge (XXG) guidance in their edits, anyone can actually point relevant Knowledge (XXG) guidance, because that is the consensus process. If you fail to

2760:

Hi, Thinker78. You have written me an e-mail asking to have your talkpage access restored. I will reply here: The way I see it, you have been exhausting the patience of administrators by submitting several long elaborate unblock requests and, in between, arguing in a bureaucratic way with the

2074:

I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the ones I mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input, regardless of whether it was in favor or against my

3663:'s. That's doubly weird. Raising concerns the way done there is almost a civility issue by itself. I say "almost" because you may be tempted to quote policy sections to disprove this statement and I'm not interested in discussing endlessly about whether it was a civility issue or not. 2542:

of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. Therefore, I did not fail to listen to the warning. I simply had provided my rationale for my previous revert, had evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and had made a

2670:

effort troll comment? Are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by forum shopping? Is it possible you are being a bit too inflexible and failing to calibrate when half a dozen other editors are letting you know that your behavior is bothering them? –

2623:

For wikilawyering and timewasting unblock requests following on wikilawyering and timewasting talkpage editing, your talkpage access has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should contact administrators by submitting a request to the

2853:

I could not participate in the discussion because I was blocked. But I think with a high degree of certainty that Conservative politicians is a very legitimate category that only needs populating, something I could not do also for the above reason. I mean there is the

3822:

No more than I'm "in dispute" with a vandal I revert. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehenson that there was any justification for your (twice) reverting the "chemtrails are racist" comment. You were merely disrupting the encyclopedia. Like a vandal.

3766:

The reason I named you is because you were one of the parties I had a dispute with if you didn't notice. I considered it proper to include you in the case because you were part of the case even if I didn't make accusations against you. Maybe I should have.

2417:: Following guidance, I made edits and two requests. I did not do forum shopping but instead I followed proper Knowledge (XXG) guidance. I heeded the warning of an administrator. I did not fail to listen. Following the fundamental principles of the 1441:

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach

3617:(XXG) was founded in 2000. I even remember the ads for Nupedia, Knowledge (XXG)'s predecessor. Therefore, using your own logic about experience, maybe you should actually listen to what grandma has to say instead of trying to impose your own views. 3598:

Similarly, most of the policy and/or guideline sections you quote don't actually tell the reader anything new. If someone has been uncivil, this can of course be addressed – a simple "wow, I didn't mean to upset you; can we focus on the content at

3621:

sentence of the policy other than the one I had in mind in the first place. This then brought discussions based on an editor having in mind one sentence of the policy and I having in mind another sentence. Also, if I stated the matter as briefly

2717:

They are not noticeboards. This is not the first time you've gone to the talk pages of random guidelines over an editor behavior complaint. Third, as far as consensus goes you should read the room a bit and look at the myriad responses here.

4070:

You're the only active editor I'm aware of who commonly is disruptive in this way, so I wouldn't seek any change to policy; also, I don't think any policy/guideline suggests such actions, and I think you've misconstrued things like

3239:

I'm sorry to hear that. Your willingness to assist is appreciated either way, and I hope everything works out for you. And yeah, I've noticed more than one instance of a "compromise" to our system over the past year or three myself.

4032:

are disruptive. Disagreements about whether or not there's consensus for a specific action or edit are ubiquitous on Knowledge (XXG), and it would make no sense for WT:CONSENSUS to be spammed with notices to every such discussion.

1465:

limited to racial topics, but to denote an action as inappropriate as racism. I see it as a content dispute and it should have been addressed like that. Is there a chance it was trolling? Yes. But again, Knowledge (XXG) tell us to

1827:

You did not answer the question and instead proceeded to block me. I believe you should have left it to other administrators to review my case and I don't think it was appropriate from you to block me in this instance. Sincerely,

499: 461: 3216:

Just let me deal with the issue I am having now. Although I don't promise anything because I may get banned from the project, things are not looking great and the system in Knowledge (XXG) seems to be compromised. Sincerely,

3625:(which sometimes I do because I understand sometimes it is more useful), there were discussions where the other editor also misinterpreted what I was saying because of the brief sentence instead of a proper length rationale. 1252:

Absolutely! Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate it. And even though we disagree about intersections, I appreciate the effort and energy you put into categories. I think your efforts are a net-positive to wikipedia.

2199:

I explained my rationale with basis in policy. You only stated a subjective opinion with no explanation or clarification whatsoever. As such I question the legitimacy of this denial. Per the consensus policy, under the

4016:

It's important that such notices be relatively rare, since the main purpose of the talk page is to facilitate improvements to the policy/guideline page. In my experience, your posts at such talk pages are common and

3366:

at least in Knowledge (XXG) I heard otherwise. Jimbo reportedly had an arbitration case against him and it ended up in not a good way for him. Check out his permissions. He is listed now only as founder. Sincerely,

2886:

Having said that, I do think admins could have been a little more gentle in the subsequent events. That, however, is not something that is likely to change overnight, so stepping lightly is advised. All the best:

1512:

Consensus is Knowledge (XXG)'s fundamental method of decision making, and involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and

3592:

in mind at Article Name" on their talk page, assuming they have seen it in the past and forgot about it for a moment. The more experienced someone is, however, the less likely is that informing them about the

266:

It is helpful for Knowledge (XXG) readers to include pronunciation for words with unusual or difficult spelling. For our English Knowledge (XXG) this is especially helpful for foreign names and locations.

1592:

I respectfully inquired and challenged your block at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask. Sincerely,

1370:

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better

3658:

two days ago, for example, doesn't really seem to be justifiable by productivity or avoiding confusing the recipient. Your approach there, for example, was patronizing from a non-existent position above

3065:

Tell me about it after I was actually blocked for reverting and talking about it by administrators who I question if they know what they are doing or if they know about the consensus policy. Sincerely,

3714:

Treating "I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping" as "admin abuse" and making a huge issue out of it, informing the administrator that ArbCom is part of

1128:

I think you'd stand a better chance of keeping categories at the intersection of politician deaths/assassinations if you made a page about the scholarly literature on the topic before the category.

479:

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Knowledge (XXG), and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

3357:

I also think this ties into a long-standing WMF organizational lifecycle problem, of operating like a software company with a userbase instead of as a public-interest nonprofit with a constituency.

4285: 1825:

I respectfully inquired and challenged your block at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask.

3678:* Of course you know this; my point is that in this specific case, the rule is already in its name, and it's already explained by three words. I'd say that's the reason why the example works. 511: 3154:

Sorry for doing it this way, but only for a minute left before break ends. Can you check your statements for word count? You might need an extension or trimming to get under 500 words. --

1203: 1105: 1059: 1013: 967: 921: 786: 740: 694: 648: 602: 556: 1459:: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach. 1344:. Please work with (not against) admins to remove trolling from Knowledge (XXG). Hint: the idea that naming the chemtrail conspiracy theory is "racist" is either trolling or from somebody 4147: 404: 3125:

You reverted an ip post, claiming later that it was "blatant trolling". Investigating the claims of the ip, I found they were valid and submitted the relevant sources in said talk page.

4607: 4561: 4515: 4469: 4423: 4377: 4331: 3015: 1432:

I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block. For starters, you did not even attempt to find out my rationale, even though I cited relevant Knowledge (XXG) guidance. The

3281:

in other platforms. Also notice how some editors may provide diffs of this comment to the Committee for some mysterious reason, I guess because they like me very much. Sincerely,

270:

The {{Pronunciation needed}} template shows as and is used to request the audio or textual pronunciation. This template puts pages into Category:Articles needing pronunciation.

3648:

demonstrate is an approach that doesn't assume the recipient needs to be educated about the policy content or (worse) its entire existence, while still getting the point across

4175: 3433:

Can you stop attempting to educate experienced users about basic policies, please? Disagreement with experienced contributors doesn't mean that they misunderstand a policy.

2628:. I should perhaps warn you that the UTRS admins will also soon enough get tired of having their time and patience wasted, so in your own interest, try to be more concise. 3430:, and now the case request I have recused from because I was recipient of one of these messages too and am annoyed to see this behavior hasn't changed since August 2022. 4011:

the other discussion features some explicit disagreement about interpretation of the policy or guideline that might be sufficiently interesting to talk page followers.

2230:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.

2810: 2806: 839: 835: 3748:. This coupled with an apparently outsized belief in their own righteousness and infalibility is just a time suck. And this is another thread that exemplifies that. 1823:

thread above. You delved in the dispute writing an accusation against me, "this is a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive". I stated and asked,

2715:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page.

2546:

I have to point out my concerns that this block has the effect in practice (not saying it was the intention of the blocking admin) of ignoring and bypassing the

455: 1642:. I strongly suggest you stop. Note that my comment does not make me involved, you, like some others I've seen recently, don't understand that that means. See 73: 3718:

and, now that the request has been declined by ArbCom, apparently still insisting that you chose the right venue for your request is a pretty good example of

2661:

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.

2168:

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.

2471:

If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects

2033:

If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects

4199: 3944:

I'm happy to explain more about why I find all those things disruptive, since I really do hope you'll change your approach before a sanction discussion.

2911:

are soon moved to make them asymmetrical. This is a form of "soft" vandalism, is it not? Can you provide some advice on how to detect who is doing this?

1541:

is at best obvious nonsense, and at worst trolling. Moving on to tone-police editors who describe nonsense as nonsense is a waste of your time and ours.

2625: 1537:@Thinker78, you've picked a strange cause to attach yourself to. A drive-by comment asserting that calling conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists is 1194: 1180: 346: 288: 3335:). It's painful, but the shift has to eventually happen or things do not go well (EFF made the transition and has blossomed; CRF failed to, and died). 4598: 4584: 4506: 4492: 4247:, I referred to the "section above", which is yours. It hasn't been archived yet and a case that is similar in my opinion arised, so I mentioned it.) 4088: 4042: 3996: 3953: 3880: 2218:

I think this principle is specially important when administrators enforce blocking editors or takes part in the process, like in this case, an appeal.

1740:

for a reason. I suggest you read these guidelines and cease defending disruption in the name of misinterpreted lack of censorship. Knowledge (XXG) is

3299:

I estimate that this is exactly the third time that someone has responded affirmatively to my thoughts. As far as I can tell, the previous two were:

2858:

but for some reason, its widely known and still current counterpart, Conservative politicians, doesn't have a category. Doesn't make sense. Regards,

2780: 809: 294: 3927:+1 from me too. I am very likely to support a sanction if this gets brought to ANI. The conduct I would love to see you change before that happens: 3567:

So in your view if you have more edits than another editor that editor should not criticize you nor should point out any Knowledge (XXG) guidance?

324: 308: 1477:

guideline out of principle, in general. Only a minority or a few of times I make a second revert. But I point out that making a second revert is

912: 898: 4322: 4308: 2363: 1959: 4612: 4566: 4520: 4474: 4428: 4382: 4336: 4290: 3020: 2814: 2646: 2591: 2153: 1795: 1208: 1110: 1064: 1018: 972: 926: 843: 791: 745: 699: 653: 607: 561: 409: 4620: 4574: 4528: 4482: 4436: 4390: 4344: 4298: 2817:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 846:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2585: 731: 717: 523: 121: 4368: 4354: 2235:

Therefore, I ask for proper clarification on why you think my interpretations are incorrect and why you mention WP:NOTTHEM. Sincerely,

1160:

I can see how you'd think that. I still think you'd make a stronger case in general if you can point to a page about the intersection.

958: 944: 685: 671: 2951: 2802: 1004: 990: 831: 510:

You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

3394: 3346: 3138: 1576: 1096: 1082: 858: 827: 813: 395: 381: 186: 181: 176: 171: 2483: 2045: 1448: 1230:

Can you refactor it to the entry regarding Assassinated politicians by political orientation, it belongs with the others, to avoid

547: 533: 777: 763: 639: 625: 354: 4616: 4570: 4524: 4478: 4432: 4386: 4340: 4294: 593: 579: 2594:, I provided evidence why I did not disrupt Knowledge (XXG) and why my edits were and are legitimate. Thanks for your attention. 245: 229: 20: 4552: 4538: 2723: 2407:

There are reasons I believe why the block against me is incorrect. I will proceed to provide context and explain my rationale.

2358: 1954: 1901: 1855: 1807: 1583: 1050: 1036: 519: 3006: 2992: 1784: 1447:

It completely perplexes me why you chose to ignore the relevant guidance I added to the edit summaries of my two reverts. The

4414: 4400: 3328: 2487: 2482:

I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of

2253:

I agree with and endorse the comments of the blocking admin. You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review.

2049: 2044:

I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, i publicized in the talk page of

2513:

favor or against my position, thence not constituting forum shopping but instead being reasonable requests based on policy.

4084: 4038: 3992: 3949: 3876: 3452:(I forgot to mention the unblock discussion above, which is also full of this and even led to talk page access removal.) 2855: 1705:

this class of troll simply because you have more willingness to suffer fools. Please let the community do what it does.

367: 2829: 2798: 2784: 2336: 1932: 1775: 4460: 4446: 3969:. Are you saying editors should not post notices at policy/guidelines talk pages to publicize discussions? Sincerely, 2486:. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the 2048:. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the 4602: 4556: 4510: 4464: 4418: 4372: 4326: 4280: 4021: 3010: 2330: 2205: 1926: 1198: 1100: 1054: 1008: 962: 916: 781: 735: 689: 643: 597: 551: 399: 2719: 2335:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1931:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1897: 1865: 1851: 1819: 1803: 1579: 3736:

Having been mysteriously named in the case request (with no clarification given when asked), I tend to agree that

2287: 1484: 4123: 3804:

Anyone can read the Chemtrails thread above and the reverts I made, which constitute a dispute. Have a good day.

2892: 1497:

you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

398:

has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

4302: 2419: 1788: 196: 105: 4276: 4262: 4080: 4034: 3988: 3963: 3945: 3872: 3028: 2410:

Note: This is a new appeal after I was advised "you may make a new unblock request for someone else to review."

2303: 2277: 2130:

I think your interpretations above are incorrect and that this is a good block. I too would advise you to read

1714: 1258: 1216: 1165: 1133: 1118: 1072: 1026: 980: 934: 799: 753: 707: 661: 615: 569: 417: 139: 2570:

revert even of what seems to be trolls, I analyze it, I investigate the context, and if it is not indeed just

1618: 225:

It's displayed below two days early, so it can be error-checked and made ready-to-display for all time zones.

3786:

restored. That doesn't rise to the level of a "dispute" with me (and if you think so, it just reinforces you

1731:: You need to learn to distinguish good-faith attempts at improving article content and drive-by disruption. 3629:

verbatim quotes. I find this to be a more productive and less confusing way to have discussions. Sincerely,

3332: 2680: 2377: 1973: 1267:

Thank you Mason. I appreciate it. Diversity of minds contributes to a proper balance in the world. Regards,

3940:

Unnecessary use of valuable community time, for instance by posting notices at policy/guideline talk pages.

3693: 3193:

Hi. You've participated in discussions on the Joan of Arc talk page, and I've begun a consensus discussion

3159: 3327:

development of nonprofit organizations. I've professionally been through this problem multiple times (at

2571: 2547: 2496: 2222: 2058: 1504: 109: 4605: