Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 1 October 2012

Final Warning

This is your final warning on articles related to the 2012 Presidential Campaign. You are currently engaged in an edit war. This content was removed and then restored, then removed and you restored. If I see you edit warring anymore, I will ban you from Paul Ryan.--v/r - TP 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis, what you're saying is that I restored this exactly once. In the meantime, I commented on the talk page section five times, including once with a list of supporting citations. I'm sorry, but this does not look like edit-warring to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm noticing that you didn't give anyone else a warning. You did post a notice on Arzel's page, but it explicitly stated that he's not being accused of anything. I find your behavior hard to explain. In particular, why are you singling me out of special, harsh treatment? Aren't you supposed to be impartial? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring in tandem with others. You can be blocked or banned all the same; do not take my warning for granted. The requirement of the article probation is that the editor must have been informed of the terms before sanctions. Arzel and North8000 were, therefore, informed. You've been informed already. This warning covers all topics under the article probation. If I see you engaged in edit warring anywhere, I will topic ban you from the whole lot of them.--v/r - TP 02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case I'll curse you out and delete my account. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"In tandem with others" would imply a conspiracy of some sort to forego the rules and do damage to the encyclopedia. Is there clear verifiable evidence of a cabal or a tag team? Have they (Arzel, North8000, Still24/7, and un-named others) negotiated amongst themselves as to a "plan of attack"? Or is it just a case of similar-minded editors working independantley for the good of the article (as they see it of course)? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I acted independently. I can't speak for others. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It does not matter whether the edit warring is in tandem, or independent. It's disruptive, and the article is subject to general sanctions. Even a single revert can be edit warring, per WP:3RR. And it should be pretty obvious that if content is being added, reverted, re-added, re-removed, that being involved in the re-adding or reverting of that content is very obviously edit warring, even for a single revert. The process is BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRD as long as the R's are being done by different people. Common sense guys. ⇒SWATJester 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, ok, so would you agree to a 1RR restriction. A 1RR restriction would allow you to edit the articles, but not making revert after revert. The reverts do seem disruptive, and should be stopped. So remember WP:BRD. Follow that and there is no need for 3 reverts, or even 2. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the articles are already under community sanctions, 1RR for all is probably what is already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not officially, although I did limit myself to 1RR in this case and was nonetheless threatened with a fatal topic ban that would have ended my Misplaced Pages career. The truth is that 1RR, combined with the broadness of what counts as a revert, makes it really hard to edit at all. You're pretty much stuck with one edit per day, just to avoid the risk of instant death. In short, forcing 1RR on just me would be a terrible idea.

In response to what Swatjester said, I generally agree, but the case here is BRDRRDRRDRRD, where the result of the discussion is tendentiously ignored by those who oppose the B, and they therefore keep reverting to remove it no matter what the consensus of the discussion turns out to be. The B is invariably some well-sourced, entirely relevant passage that has the unavoidable consequence of not putting the subject in the best light, and there are people who think WP:UNDUE doesn't apply if the majority view doesn't happen to suit them. They either don't participate in the discussion at all or participate only to stonewall. These whitewashers are the real problem and they're the ones who need to be threatened, not me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned that TParis is showing less than a fair measure of objectivity. The events here have confirmed it. If he topic bans me, rather than quitting Misplaced Pages, I will go over his head. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis singling me out.

TParis has been singling me out with regard to the community probation of election-related articles. He has threatened to ban me just because I reverted exactly once after long discussion. If he were consistent, he'd have to ban half the editors involved, but he's no being consistent at all. I asked him to lay out his requirements up front so that it's possible to follow them, but he refuses. In short, what's going to happen is that I do something reasonable that plenty of other editors do without anyone complaining but TParis will single me out and ban me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may attempt to impart a clue here: sparring with TParis is not going to get you anywhere other than the business end of a banhammer. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kerfuffler is right. Just drop it and forget it. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why TParis needs to lose the admin rights. Over zealous, biased and if you dare criticize him the hammer of thor comes out. GimliDotNet 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on that, except to say that the one requirement that all admins must have is thick skin. They should be able to accept criticism without taking it personally, much less threatening to retaliate. This one takes things personally, he threatens to retaliate, he singles out those who annoy him. And that's why I'm complaining: he's not doing his job, just threatening mine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, you can see where I in fact walked away. I took a quick peek just now, and it's clear that nothing he said after that in any way addressed my point; instead, he threatened me for asking him to stop being ambiguous. The unaddressed point is that he had so broadly interpreted edit-warring (1RR after discussion) that everyone was guilty, then selectively chose to threaten me but not anyone else who'd reverted it at some point that day. The end result is that, instead of specifying what is acceptable so that we can voluntarily stay within those lines, he's keeping his requirements secret so that he can arbitrarily enforce them. I fully expect that he will live up to his track record of special treatment by topic banning me essentially at random for things that nobody else is getting topic banned for. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some discussions where you just have to walk away. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. This is the part where you fold 'em. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you could actualy take that advice yourself.....it would be super!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And, what part of the midwest are you from? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

More advice (sorry)

Hey, I was going to try to avoid bugging you again with more advice, but I saw the hullabaloo on TParis's talk page and checked your recent edit history again. On the bright side, you seem to have improved since last we talked, but there are still some problems I'd like to address. The first is creating a section named Failure to BRD by Belchfire on an article talk page. While I am no fan of Belchfire, his techniques, or his foul language, I have to say that making a section title accusing another editor is inappropriate. Second: When Little Green Rosetta pointed out that you too fail to follow BRD, you freaked out, hatting his comment twice , confronting him on his talk page , and requesting that he redact it . (Incidentally, in the past three days you have failed to follow BRD at least 4 times by my count. I can provide diffs at your request.)

Anyway, I'm going to share something with you that has helped me a lot when I'm involved in conflicts. It's Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Basically the higher up the pyramid you go, the better your argument. Most of the arguments I've seen from you tend to be from the bottom four rungs on the pyramid. For instance, when TParis gave you the "final warning" you responded by accusing him of being biased. That's Ad Hominem and name-calling. The same goes for accusing people you disagree with of "conservative bias" and such. Labeling someone as an edit warrior is also name calling. (Off-hand remarks about Wikiproject:Conservatism are a Red herring, which is not on this chart.) You also frequently respond to the tone of an argument, raising Cain over anything you perceive to be a personal attack.

My advice is: Stay in the top three rungs of the pyramid. Ignore the tone and the characteristics of your opponent and focus on the substance of the argument itself. If somebody says something that sounds like a personal attack, ignore it. It will only reflect badly on them. If an admin threatens you with a block, don't attack them; adjust your behavior. To sum it up, if you want to actually "win" arguments, stick to the top 2 or 3 rungs. If you enjoy useless bickering, making enemies, and having to edit war to win disputes, stick to the bottom 3 rungs.

Anyway, there's my advice. As always, you're under no obligation to take it or leave it. Your editing today was much better than your editing 3 days ago, so keep up the good work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I've removed the "by Belchfire" from "Failure to BRD by Belchfire".
2. He falsely accused me of hypocrisy, which is unambiguously a personal attack. The comment was particularly offensive because it's an intentional distortion. When I choose not to follow the letter of BRD, I still follow the spirit, as by discussing immediately after reverting the revert. Belchfire just walked over, reverted with an insulting comment and left. Big, big difference.
3. When someone hats a comment as offensive or otherwise indicates that it's offensive to them, the right thing to do in most cases is to redact it. The wrong thing to do in most cases is to edit war to restore it. He violated WP:DICK after violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
4. Graham's hierarchy is about debate. There is no debate here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A Masters in Tooting my Own Horn, plus a Doctorate in Unverifiable Claims

• 1)I'm not sure that Mr. Romney paid any taxes in the years prior to 2010,
• 2)I'm not sure that the Artic Circle is quite as big as it used to be,
• 3)I'm not sure that the Cubs will ever be in the World Series,
  • But...I AM sure that you can easily identify glaring examples of WP:Roadblock. (Don't bother looking it up. It doesnt exist). Welcome to the Wonderful World of Going-round-in Circles. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Circles breed patience. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Watchmen on the Walls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPLC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Project Conservatism

Looks like you forgot to sign your last post to the talk page under Liberal Bias. Just a friendly reminder so you don't experience friendly fire. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; I'll correct it immediately. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As predicted, you singled me out for punishment. Your ban is illegitimate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He hardly singled you out. Three other users got the same treatment. , , ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think SS should have been topic banned over what occurred (just as I don't think I should have been), I find it amusing that only he jumped to such a conclusion. I immediately checked to see who else TP had banned when I got my message.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a history with TP. In particular, he has singled me out before, so it was not unreasonable to think he was doing it again. If anything, going nuclear on everyone involved in this is even worse. Basically, he created an edit war and then punished everyone who was in the vicinity. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to ANI about it right now. Here comes the drama and boomerang punishments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to give it a break and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple suggestions for ANI the next time you decide to use it:

1. Don't bias the heading with your recommended outcome. Leave it as neutral as possible
2. Don't leave a long, multi-paragraph notice. The shorter, the better, and if you can break it down into five long sentences, that's ideal.

Hope that helps. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll step back and let others speak, as this is a community decision. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Your innocence is delightful. "Community decision" often translates as "you're screwed". Enjoy. I very, very rarely ever agree with the "community". Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm catching up on what's going on. What I'm not seeing is any evidence that a topic ban was warranted for any of the edits made during this period of time. Basically, TP screwed up and now he's covering up by screwing everyone over. Nobody has explained under what reasonable basis my single, reasonable edit constitutes reason for a topic ban. Nobody. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Delightful! Did you just start editing yesterday? :) :) Admins defend admins, rain or shine, come hell or high water. They take no responsibility and there is no accountability; plus, they are elected for life. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! :) Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've participated mostly through the talk page. This is my first edit to the article in days and I stayed at 1RR to avoid any reasonable claim that I was edit-warring. Guess that being reasonable is no longer relevant. As I said on ANI, TP is biased and incompetent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are new, aren't you? You can't be competent and an admin. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. I won't deny that there are all too many incompetent admins on Misplaced Pages, but there are also plenty of exceptions. The problem is that Yeats had it right:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Such is the case with admins. The most reasonable are often so reasonable that they seem inactive. The ones who are quick to act are almost always the ones who shouldn't have a sysop bit in the first place. Consider TP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the stats: most admins aren't active, and most editors who are active and want to be admins (My76Strat, etc.) can't. The "shit-stem" doesn't work. "Adminship" only exists for one reason—to lord dominance over the rest of the primates. As I've been saying for years, it needs to be deprecated and replaced with a simple delegation of rights that can be requested and handed out easily, and removed in a moment. Need protection rights? Request it. Need to delete pages? Request it. And in any case, 90% of admin duties can be replaced with bots. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of people seem to be editing solely as a campaign to become admins. They fill their user page with their editing accomplishments, put in their time reverting random vandalism and try to act as if they're already admins. To be blunt, these are the same people who should under no circumstances have their sysop bit set. Nobody who really, really wants to be admin is sane enough to deserve it. It's only those who slid into the role despite themselves who are qualified. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lord Acton, etc. We need to return to the basics, to the marketplace of ideas and knowledge. Those who have the best ideas should be in positions of leadership, not those who carry the biggest sticks. Seen any admins with good ideas lately? Of course not, once you become an admin you toe the line. See how this runs counter to good decision making? Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That's funny. 76Strat crossed my path just today and I instinctively assumed they were an admin. After reading your comment I had to go check. (Perhaps I had confused them with Mr. Stradavarious...dunno.)

Strat ran for RfA but didn't pass. I supported him, but not enough did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@StillStanding, remember what I said about ad hominems. If you really want to convince people, don't attack your opponent ("biased and incompetent") but their argument. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd love to attack his argument, but he doesn't actually have one. Apparently, he doesn't need one, since no admin is willing to undue the huge mistake. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Still, I understand your frustration, more than you know. But at ANI all we can look at is whether or not it was allowed under policy. If another admin wants to reverse it, they can, but in this case, it really is within policy and admin loathe reversing another based solely on their "opinion", rather than policy. I accept the fact that I am much slower to take action than virtually every other admin, but I don't go around reversing them, imposing my will on them. Had it been against policy, or he met the criteria for involved, I would have said as much. I am sincere when I say if you just give it a day or two, let things calm down, we can go talk to him and assure that the goal isn't to inject bias into the article, and he will reconsider. Doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm serious when I say my experience with him has been that he is reasonable. We agree on some things, disagree on others, but it has never been an issue and he isn't one to normally dig in. But stretching it out and laboring it won't change the outcome, I promise you. I would like to think you know I will always try to be fair and honest about things and not take sides, and I'm not taking sides here, just saying that policy does allow this, and trying to find a way to minimize the duration, which is the best solution for you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I made exactly one edit, and it was a good one. If policy allows a topic ban for this then policy is wrong.

And, to be frank, I do not expect TP to ever be reasonable where I'm concerned. He never has in the past and he won't start now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

He was considering your talk page edits as well, you know that. Again, it puts me in the position where I have to say what he did was within policy. It doesn't everyone would have done the same thing, only that it is allowed. You might be surprised, he isn't as much a hard ass as you might think. He is very principled, but that isn't a bad thing. Again, sleep on it, pull back for the evening, don't throw more salt on the wound, we can talk tomorrow. I've stayed up way later than usual here, gotta get up in a few hours, so I need to get some sleep for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its just a short term topic ban. I don't see the big deal. There has been a lot of discussion. It didn't come out of the blue. SS-247 is a good editor and has value as an editor. This is supposed to discourage edit warring not editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It can't discourage edit-warring because I wasn't edit-warring. I made a single revert that conformed the article to BLP restrictions. More deeply, because this is not a reasonable ban, it's not going to do anything positive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright; I am starting to see beginning of disruptive behaviour from BOTH of you!

Seb az: Seriously? You bait users and then drama-whore about it on ANI? Newsflash: You are NOT Malleus; that shit is NOT going to go down well when it comes back to bite you on the ass!

StillStanding: Stop pressing the issue. It's obvious that the admin corps has already come to a consensus on this and if you continue to push it you may end up blocked for the duration of the RFC.

In case it is not obvious I have left this same message on both of your talkpages. I will be watching both pages so there is no need for a talkback template. Both of you need to stop arguing and fighting so you can resolve the issues you are both facing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As SudoGhost pointed out, contrary to the statement Seb made, Misplaced Pages policy does in fact require admins to explain their actions. I would like TParis to explain precisely what it is about my one, reasonable edit that merited a ban. I am still waiting. Seb has nothing to do with this; it's all about TP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally; you might want to take a wikibreak for a few days. Let the stress of these events out of your system. It works wonders for me. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I find that, whenever I'm not around to defend myself, I get blocked. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, that may not be happening because of why you think it's happening. Just get into the habit of taking wikibreaks BEFORE you do stuff that gets you blocked and you'll be surprised how much of a difference it makes when you no longer have any actions that do not defend themselves! Just look at the restrictions I used to be under as proof of that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a funny history on Misplaced Pages. You see, I've been blocked exactly once, only because I wasn't around to point out that the 4RR report was false. When I did point it out later, the blocking admin decided that it didn't matter.

The edit I made to Paul Ryan does defend itself. It's a single article edit -- the first in days -- and not followed by any attempt to revert back to it. Moreover, the goal of the edit was to ensure WP:BLP compliance, and other editors have commented that my version was indeed an improvement over what I removed. Despite all this, I'm caught up in a topic ban launched by TP to cover for the edit war he himself caused by his bad policy call. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself have a bit of a funny history on wikipedia. Did you know that I was just a minute or so away from an indef block due to similar behaviour at one point? Now 18 months later my indefinite topic bans from noticeboards and contentious articles have been lifted and I have not been blocked since they were lifted because I figured out how to make my actions defend themselves enough to avoid being blocked. You may see it as just one edit, but put yourself into the shoes of the admin; frustrated with an ongoing edit war. That edit just sadly happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. As for the 4RR report; don't worry about it! Admins are also humans (AFAIK anyway!), they make mistakes! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did put myself in his shoes, and it was obvious to me that:

1. TP should never have incited the edit-war by telling people it was ok to edit on the topic of the RFC while the RFC was still running.
2. TP should have simply protected the article, not punished the people he set up with his incompetent ruling.

As you said, people make mistakes. However, those who consistently make big ones that undermine their credibility as admins should voluntarily step down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Those issues sort themselves out in time. Have a read of WP:ROPE and you should see what I mean. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

According to that page, TP should simply unban me, content that I'll either stop doing whatever it was that got me banned in the first place or I'll repeat my offense and get a no-nonsense ban. Problem is that nobody -- including TP -- seems to know what the reason for the ban is. The one edit I made to the article was entirely reasonable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Read beyond the obvious. What is that essay saying when you remove all referances to users under blocks, bans or other sanctions? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, given time and opportunity, people reveal their failings. Problem is, it's taking forever for anyone with authority to notice how badly (and consistently) TP is screwing up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As the old adage goes: "You can't rush art." It may take more time than you are comfortable with but no matter how slowly the cogs turn, the fact remains that they are still turning. Each time a person screws up they are more likely to have their errors catch up with them. Some people just need a higher probability than others to be caught out. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm the opposite of TP: I can get "caught" without even bothering with the middle step of screwing up! It's a special talent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as you don't let it get the better of you then you should be fine. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean like getting topic-banned for making a single, reasonable edit? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again; don't worry about it! the cogs are turning! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As Viriditas suggested earlier, best thing I can do now is step back and let the community commune. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If you do that more often and a little bit sooner then next thing you know it; you'll not have to worry about stuff like this! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain, discretionary sanctions are a funny animal and admins are given a large amount of rope to implement them. The solution isn't to call TParis names or question his competence, it is to step back, try to understand his reasons (many have explained them) and even if you don't agree with his conclusions, make it clear that your intentions are to participate in a neutral and fair manner. Bludgeoning it from atop a soapbox will only hurt your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its become obvious that you Question Authority. Not a bad trait but one that will definitely land you in hot water. The trick is not to let it turn into steam which will scald and endanger your promising WP career. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that StillStanding questions authority. That is probably why I empathize, as I'm not the biggest fan of accepting authority at face value either. This is why I'm not shy about reverting other admins or taking a stand. But there is no justice here, and I really mean it. ANI is particularly bad about that, by design. It is about solutions, not fairness. This is why I keep saying to just back off a day or two, let the dust settle, so we can find a way to possibly modify the solution. It is one thing to stand up for what you think is right, which is admirable, but once you realize that you aren't going to "win", it is wise to take a different tact in order to achieve your goals. If your goal is to edit the article, laboring the issue on a soapbox is not going to achieve those goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)