User talk:Realskeptic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:19, 21 November 2015 editTenOfAllTrades (talk \| contribs)Administrators21,283 edits →Andrew Wakefield: It would have been immediately obvious if you had looked at the contributions for 70.128.114.67, which are directly linked in the user's signature, which you restored.← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:08, 21 November 2015 edit undoJpgordon (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,313 edits →Andrew Wakefield Next edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Please read the ] for more information. ] (]) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}}		Please read the ] for more information. ] (]) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}}

	{{unblock\|reason=My first unblock request met that criteria, but the reviewing admin dismissed it using an older edit example not relevant to the current block to make a suggestion about my motives in violation of ] and about my behavior without evidence in violation of ]. He also demonstrated bias towards the subject matter itself by supporting inclusion of court rulings against the subject, but not which included a court decision about the subject's work and a formal investigation decision about the subject that would balance out the neutrality of the article per ] and ]. I just want an admin to review my original unblock request without condescension or prejudice:		{{unblock reviewed\|reason=My first unblock request met that criteria, but the reviewing admin dismissed it using an older edit example not relevant to the current block to make a suggestion about my motives in violation of ] and about my behavior without evidence in violation of ]. He also demonstrated bias towards the subject matter itself by supporting inclusion of court rulings against the subject, but not which included a court decision about the subject's work and a formal investigation decision about the subject that would balance out the neutrality of the article per ] and ]. I just want an admin to review my original unblock request without condescension or prejudice:

	I was blocked for one week for edit warring on multiple fronts and wish to contest the block. The block refers to reverts I've made on the and pages back to edits I had previously made. My edits used sources that met ] criteria, and I sought to enforce Misplaced Pages policies, specifically ] for ], ] and ] for ] and ] for both. For the latter page, the edits concern allegations never formally charged and findings-of-fact later overturned on appeal. Both are currently represented on the page as if they are true in breach of both ] and ]. Referring to the subject as "discredited" and blaming him on infectious disease deaths raise other ] and ] issues as well. On ], the edits concerned ] which involved a conjectural interpretation of one source and the misrepresentation of another source that made it look like it was critical of the subject when it concerned the subject of the ] page. ] was claimed to originally justify the ] edits, though their stated purpose was not supported by their wording or by their sources. So I made changes to both pages. My reverts do not constitute edit warring since they fall under exemption criteria from edit warring to enforce overriding policies. Had I been aware of this sooner, I would have also used these to contest my earlier, 24-hour block.		I was blocked for one week for edit warring on multiple fronts and wish to contest the block. The block refers to reverts I've made on the and pages back to edits I had previously made. My edits used sources that met ] criteria, and I sought to enforce Misplaced Pages policies, specifically ] for ], ] and ] for ] and ] for both. For the latter page, the edits concern allegations never formally charged and findings-of-fact later overturned on appeal. Both are currently represented on the page as if they are true in breach of both ] and ]. Referring to the subject as "discredited" and blaming him on infectious disease deaths raise other ] and ] issues as well. On ], the edits concerned ] which involved a conjectural interpretation of one source and the misrepresentation of another source that made it look like it was critical of the subject when it concerned the subject of the ] page. ] was claimed to originally justify the ] edits, though their stated purpose was not supported by their wording or by their sources. So I made changes to both pages. My reverts do not constitute edit warring since they fall under exemption criteria from edit warring to enforce overriding policies. Had I been aware of this sooner, I would have also used these to contest my earlier, 24-hour block.
Line 50:		Line 50:
	I always provided justification for my edits and reverts in edit summaries. I followed ] by repeatedly requesting discussion on talk pages in my edit summaries and started new in hoping to be engaged in civil discourse by editors who reverted my changes. I did my best to follow the ] cycle. Notably, an editor who has directly addressed my ] edits and the reasoning behind them had defended my edits on the talk page even after I was blocked. I'm sorry if this is long, but just want to get all my points in.		I always provided justification for my edits and reverts in edit summaries. I followed ] by repeatedly requesting discussion on talk pages in my edit summaries and started new in hoping to be engaged in civil discourse by editors who reverted my changes. I did my best to follow the ] cycle. Notably, an editor who has directly addressed my ] edits and the reasoning behind them had defended my edits on the talk page even after I was blocked. I'm sorry if this is long, but just want to get all my points in.

			] (]) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)\|decline=Here's the deal. You're blocked for edit warring. The only thing you've mentioned that could possibly be exemptions to our edit warring policy is ]; discussing anything else in a request to lift this block is a waste of your time as well as that of the admins reading it. You'll need to demonstrate that each of your reversions has been because of BLP; you don't get to edit war based up UNDUE or NPOV or RS or anything like that. At any rate, you are an inch away from being blocked for ], and that's a lot harder to recover from than a simple edit warring block (which would be lifted immediately if you'd agree to stay away from the articles that are causing the problem.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC) }}
	] (]) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}}

	'''Support for unblock request.''' I agree with this user's unblock request. This user hasn't really done anything wrong, and should be unblocked. ] (]) 18:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)		'''Support for unblock request.''' I agree with this user's unblock request. This user hasn't really done anything wrong, and should be unblocked. ] (]) 18:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:08, 21 November 2015

Welcome...

Hello, Realskeptic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I've already modified your contribution at Andrew Wakefield, hopefully for the better.

Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

Hi. I have undone your edit at the above article. As you can imagine, this wording has been discussed at length, and has not been arrived at frivolously. Please feel free to initiate another discussion on the article's "talk" (discussion) page. The earlier discussions are archived here. (You can also access the archive via a link at the top of the current "talk" page.)

Debate at Misplaced Pages can be robust; patience, politeness and persistence are often required. Our editing is also tightly constrained by policies and guidelines. If you want to pursue this, I'll be arguing against removing "fraudulent" from the article, but I have been persuaded to change my mind in the past.

Your point that we shouldn't be basing assertions of fact on opinion is plausible and may be worth expanding on. Another possible avenue is our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Once you have familiarised yourself with that policy, if you think the article breaches it, you may consider asking the opinion of other editors at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you can elicit enough support there, the present wording may be overturned.

Modesty and politeness, even in the face of rudeness (don't be a wimp, but don't be snarky or hysterical either) is the shortest route to wherever you want to go here. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion relies on weasel words and is outdated. I added a new section with reliable sources that dispute at least some of the allegations of fraud made against Wakefield, but you removed those citing what appears to be your own opinion. That is a violation of WP: NPOV. While I appreciate the suggestions, those developments still need to be added.

Realskeptic (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors watching the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for one week for edit warring on multiple fronts and wish to contest the block. The block refers to reverts I've made on the Andrew Wakefield and Trace Amounts pages back to edits I had previously made. My edits used sources that met WP:Reliable criteria, and I sought to enforce Misplaced Pages policies, specifically WP:NOR for Trace Amounts, WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME for Andrew Wakefield and WP:NPOV for both. For the latter page, the edits concern allegations never formally charged and findings-of-fact later overturned on appeal. Both are currently represented on the page as if they are true in breach of both WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. Referring to the subject as "discredited" and blaming him on infectious disease deaths raise other WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues as well. On Trace Amounts, the edits concerned WP:NOR which involved a conjectural interpretation of one source and the misrepresentation of another source that made it look like it was critical of the subject when it concerned the subject of the Andrew Wakefield page. WP:UNDUE was claimed to originally justify the Trace Amounts edits, though their stated purpose was not supported by their wording or by their sources. So I made changes to both pages. My reverts do not constitute edit warring since they fall under exemption criteria from edit warring to enforce overriding policies. Had I been aware of this sooner, I would have also used these to contest my earlier, 24-hour block.

I always provided justification for my edits and reverts in edit summaries. I followed WP:AVOIDEDITWAR by repeatedly requesting discussion on talk pages in my edit summaries and started new discussion sections in talk pages hoping to be engaged in civil discourse by editors who reverted my changes. I did my best to follow the WP:BRD cycle. Notably, an editor who has directly addressed my Andrew Wakefield edits and the reasoning behind them had defended my edits on the talk page even after I was blocked. I'm sorry if this is long, but just want to get all my points in. Realskeptic (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Multiple people tried explaining to you what was wrong with your claims of BLP violations. I think that this removal of mentions of court rulings against Wakefield makes it perfectly clear that you're here not to uphold NPOV/BLP/whatever. Max Semenik (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Request reason:

Sorry, I was misinformed that court decisions are not used in material about living people per WP:BLP. Realskeptic (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't use primary sources, we can use secondary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

That doesn't address the previous admin's decline reason, which is not in line with WP:AGF. Realskeptic (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

My first unblock request met that criteria, but the reviewing admin dismissed it using an older edit example not relevant to the current block to make a suggestion about my motives in violation of WP:AGF and about my behavior without evidence in violation of WP:PERSONAL. He also demonstrated bias towards the subject matter itself by supporting inclusion of court rulings against the subject, but not my edits which included a court decision about the subject's work and a formal investigation decision about the subject that would balance out the neutrality of the article per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I just want an admin to review my original unblock request without condescension or prejudice:

Realskeptic (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Here's the deal. You're blocked for edit warring. The only thing you've mentioned that could possibly be exemptions to our edit warring policy is WP:BLP; discussing anything else in a request to lift this block is a waste of your time as well as that of the admins reading it. You'll need to demonstrate that each of your reversions has been because of BLP; you don't get to edit war based up UNDUE or NPOV or RS or anything like that. At any rate, you are an inch away from being blocked for WP:BATTLEFIELD, and that's a lot harder to recover from than a simple edit warring block (which would be lifted immediately if you'd agree to stay away from the articles that are causing the problem.) --jpgordon 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Support for unblock request. I agree with this user's unblock request. This user hasn't really done anything wrong, and should be unblocked. 70.128.114.67 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(Please note that the above IP editor is currently blocked for trolling. Over the course of a few minutes, he copy-pasted the identical message above to more than a dozen different talk pages of editors with live unblock requests. The message above was rolled back along with all the others, but Realskeptic wants it left here and I'm not going to fight him on it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC))

I had no idea and would have liked to have been informed of that when you removed the comment. You are free to remove it now if you want, but what you block other accounts for is not my problem. Realskeptic (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It would have been immediately obvious if you had looked at the contributions for 70.128.114.67&dmash;which are directly linked in the user's signature, which you restored. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As your edits about Andrew Wakefield, which you have insisted on repeatedly adding, are demonstrably incorrect, I would only agree with an unblock if you were to agree not to edit on the two subjects in question. Please let me warn you that further edit-warring on these subjects will almost certainly lead to a much longer block. I suspect, admittedly without evidence, that you hold definite personal views about the alleged effects of immunisations. If so, please try not to let these views distort the impartiality of your editing.--Anthony Bradbury 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, especially with someone who tells me not to let my views distort the impartiality of my editing right after making it clear he would let his own views distort the impartiality of his unblock decision. I asked for my unblock request to be reviewed without prejudice. If you can't do that, then another admin should. Realskeptic (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for my unblock request to be fully reviewed without condescension or prejudice and in accordance with WP:AGF. To call for retaliation against such a reasonable request with a ban as some editors have done is a battlefield attitude. Realskeptic (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

as I am a medical practitioner you will note that, because I might be thought not to be impartial, I in fact did not review your request; my warning referred specifically to edit-warring, not article content.--Anthony Bradbury 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's good you did not involve yourself in the decision over whether to keep me unblocked. However, you shouldn't make WP:EDITWAR accusations against another editor without evidence, especially if you know the editor has submitted an unblock request that you have not reviewed due to personal bias. Making accusations without evidence violates WP:PERSONAL. The fact that this was repeatedly made multiple times often by the same editors and in breach of WP:CIVILITY constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Threats to disrupt an editor's activity such as through blocks and bans based on those accusations constitutes WP:Harassment. Realskeptic (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please Ban Repeat Harasser From Posting on My Talk Page

After already deleting a comment from repeat harasser BullRangifer on my talk page for user space harassment, I see he has now returned to leave yet another disruptive comment calling for my permanent ban and deletion of my talk page. Ironically the call is motivated by my removal of comments from my user space in keeping with WP:TPG and WP:UP#OWN that included his own.

Though he claims I do not understand the policies I cite, he falsely accuses me of WP:TPG as well as WP:EDITWAR (edits to ones own user page are exempt from what is considered edit-warring). He also has escalated ad hominem attacks and name-calling despite repeated requests for him to stop.

His disruption of my talk page also constitutes a WP:POINTy edit and violation of WP:NOBAN as he has admitted that he was baiting me to remove it. He has also admitted that his emotions and those of like-minded editors are the reason for their continuously failing to discuss my edits.

His hostility towards my edits and comments is far out of proportion to anything I have written. For example, when I reiterated my as-yet unmet request for my unblock request to be reviewed without prejudice, BullRangifer replied:

"That is such a clear example of a battlefield attitude as to justify an immediate indefinite ban from Misplaced Pages. There is no point in further discussion. The only alternative would be extensive topic bans."

Although I deleted that comment, I replied

"All I'm asking is for my unblock request to be fully reviewed without condescension or prejudice and in accordance with WP:AGF. To call for retaliation against such a reasonable request with a topic ban is a battlefield attitude."

Yet in his latest attack, he claims:

"They have not provided a shred of evidence that they are willing to learn how things work here. We see nothing but rebellion."

Which one of us is unwilling to learn here?

While BullRangifer insists I demonstrated "no collaborative spirit," he has demonstrated contempt for doing so. To provide one example - I requested editors reverting my edits discuss on the talk page. BullRangifer rejected my plea, saying not here, time for a block. What he also does not disclose is that that was the first request that led to my current block, which is perhaps part of why he is so angry and wants my talk page deleted along with my edits not being in line with his POV pushing.

Though BullRangifer contends that no one will protest my banning, another editor continues to defend my most recent edits that I left before I was blocked. BullRangifer also implicitly insults any admin unwilling to call for his retaliatory ban by saying they don't "have the balls" to do so. Additionally, he makes WP:PERSONAL attacks on me such as "the ultimate pseudoskeptic POV edit warrior" and calls me "cowardly." This is the behavior of a bully.

To follow through on BullRangifer's demands is to empower a bully, as I feel was the case with my current block. Not only will banning me violate Misplaced Pages policies, but the abhorrent behavior of BullRangifer will reflect on any admin that does. I would also contest the ban and will be able to prove that I was in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies in spite of BullRangifer's repeat attacks. I have been subject to repeated WP:WIKIHOUNDING by him both here and elsewhere. It has to stop.

Though I don't see how such a person could be reasonably allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, I recognize that a decision to ban BullRangifer should be left to the admins. What I am asking is for BullRangifer to be banned from commenting on my talk page indefinitely.

Realskeptic (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)