Misplaced Pages

User talk:Realskeptic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:54, 23 November 2015 editAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,421 edits →=User talk: fix← Previous edit Revision as of 15:54, 23 November 2015 edit undoAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,421 edits Reverted to revision 692037697 by Realskeptic (talk): Block expired, blanking is fine. (TW)Next edit →
Line 26: Line 26:
::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 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. --] (]) 06:13, 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 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. --] (]) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;'''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->

{{unblock reviewed|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 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 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. ] (]) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
|decline=Multiple people tried explaining to you what was wrong with your claims of BLP violations. I think that of mentions of court rulings against Wakefield makes it perfectly clear that you're here not to uphold NPOV/BLP/whatever. ] (]) 06:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
}}
{{unblock reviewed|reason=Sorry, I was that court decisions are not used in material about living people per ]. ] (]) 06:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)|decline=We don't use primary sources, we can use secondary sources. ] (]) 23:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed | 1=That doesn't address the previous admin's decline reason, which is not in line with ]. ] (]) 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | decline = 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, <u>or</u>
*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 ] for more information. ] (]) 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}}

{{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 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) }}

'''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)
:<small>(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. ](]) 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC))</small>
:: I had no idea and would have liked to have been informed of that when you . You are free to remove it now if you want, but what you block other accounts for is not my problem. ] (]) 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. ](]) 19:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
::::As I've said, that is not my problem. However, you're still free to remove. ] (]) 07:56, 22 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.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 17:24, 19 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.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 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. ] (]) 04:44, 20 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. ] (]) 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Line 104: Line 73:


:Again, I don't see how such an abusive and bullying POV pusher should be allowed to edit an encyclopedia, though that is for the admins to decide. However, I hope they recognize the need to permanently deny BullRangifer the technical ability to engage in any further abuse towards me on my own talk page. ] (]) 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC) :Again, I don't see how such an abusive and bullying POV pusher should be allowed to edit an encyclopedia, though that is for the admins to decide. However, I hope they recognize the need to permanently deny BullRangifer the technical ability to engage in any further abuse towards me on my own talk page. ] (]) 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

==User talk==
I've restored the declined unblock request: per ] they may ''not'' be removed until the block has expired. Also, you can simply request that particular editors not post on your talkpage, you don't have to write a wall of text. That doesn't apply to administrative enforcement actions. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:54, 23 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)

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)

I would like to just re-emphasize my request for a talk page ban of BullRangifer, who has now moved to attack me on his own talk page. Among the attacks include likening me to an animal that needs to be euthanized, calling me "Realseptic" and saying that I should be thankful to "all the people that f---ed me" (dashes mine). I should also note that he resorts to projection by now accusing me of bullying.
BullRangifer also expresses overall contempt for admins ("we have so few courageous admins", "We even have admins who practice victim blaming, bullying, and piling on, so they may even side with Realseptic's bullying attacks on me."), suggesting I am far from the first user he has had issues with - factional support from like-minded editors notwithstanding. He also repeats his "cowardly" accusation towards me for exercising the right to remove comments from my talk page per WP:UP#OWN and WP:REMOVED and for calling for him to be banned from my talk page, which is extremely ironic for someone who is calling for my banning from Misplaced Pages and the deletion of my talk page.
By his own admission, he wants me banned and my talk page deleted without discussion:
"It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking."
I hope this makes it all the more clear why this user's call for a ban should not be taken seriously and why he should never be allowed to post on my talk page. As stated previously, I would contest the block as I will be able to prove I am not guilty of the things BullRangifer accuses me of. Additionally, BullRangifer's "conduct" would not reflect well on any admin who follows through with his request.
Again, I don't see how such an abusive and bullying POV pusher should be allowed to edit an encyclopedia, though that is for the admins to decide. However, I hope they recognize the need to permanently deny BullRangifer the technical ability to engage in any further abuse towards me on my own talk page. Realskeptic (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)