Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 2 August 2012 (→Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Old Al (Talk) 00:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! StillStanding-247, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! Sarah (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How to abuse a talk page.

In a recent post, Lionelt outlined a simple plan to get rid of me:

Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Misplaced Pages. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not coincidentally, when I cleared my talk page, the person he was writing to immediately reverted my wipe. I think it's painfully obvious what's going on here.

I have nothing to hide; I'm proud of my small achievements here and I fully expect that some people will be unhappy with them. However, this talk page is not going to serve as a sewer for these people to fill with bogus notices intended to create the illusion of a pattern of disruptive editing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women: "redefining rape"

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Still-24-45-42-125. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

You have been mentioned here – Lionel 03:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edit comment and the comment on the talk page show that I was acting under the belief that WP:BLP beats out WP:3RR. Is this how you like to WP:BITE new editors who act in good faith? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with Ed. You invoked BLP only on the fourth revert ... to me some sort of estoppel principle applies at that point as a BLP vio would have been obvious from the beginning. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (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.

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Keep in mind that the block came through while I was sleeping, and I only had a minute to protest it in the morning. I've since taken the time to study the record and reconstruct the timeline and my thinking. It turns out that, even if you ignore the fact that my last edit was made under the earnest belief that 3RR did not apply to reverting BLP violations, I flatly did not exceed 3RR and should therefore have this block immediately lifted.

According to WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Look at the diffs carefully and you'll see that the first two reported reverts are just the two halves of a single one. The first cuts "both praised and" in the middle of the sentence, while the second cuts the end of the sentence, "that had been previously raised by others".

Both parts had been added as a unit, with the effect of violating some combination of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE by whitewashing the overwhelmingly negative global response to Romney's Olympic gaffe. I noticed that change while walking through the history, decided it was necessary to revert, and thought I removed all of it. A few minutes later, I noticed that I had somehow failed to, and immediately fixed my error. In the interim, a bot walked by and dated a tag added previously, but no user edited it.

What was listed as my third revert (but was actually my second) was a re-removal of the end of the sentence after it was restored, and what was listed as my fourth revert (but was actually my third and last) rolled back both the praise and the end of the sentence at once, as well as a bunch of other BLP issues generated by the original editor. Again, this means that I simply did not violate WP:3RR. At the time I made my last edit, I was aware that I was on the border of 3RR so I invoked BLP, just in case, but it wasn't necessary.

If I'd had a chance to research and respond before the block, I would have pointed this out and there would not have been a block. Therefore, I am asking you to remove my block before it expires. If you're wondering why I'm arguing over a few hours, ask me and I'll explain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the first two edits count as one revert, you were still edit warring. T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (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.

{{unblock|reason=Just to be clear, it doesn't sound as if you're even trying to deny that the first pair of reported edits counts as one or that, had this been mentioned, I would not have been blocked. Instead, you're saying that you've just now come up with an additional justification for continuing a block that shouldn't have even been there. This justification could just as easily have been used to block all of the other people who hit 3RR or to protect the whole page. Instead, you're singling me out arbitrarily. Does this seem reasonable to you? From my point of view, it's counterproductive, vindictive, and patently unfair, with all the appearance of political bias.

What's really sad is that you're allowing yourself to be manipulated. As you may have noticed, Lionelt recently leveled some false accusations against me in an attempt to get me blocked. Previously, he admitted that his goal was to get you to shower me with escalating blocks until I gave up. Forget WP:AGF here! His motive is that he's in charge of WikiProjects: Conservatism and I keep editing out conservative bias. And, like it or not, you're letting him make you his pawn.

Not only was I not edit warring, but due to the fact that I expected Lionelt to use any excuse available to attack me, I was limiting myself to 2RR so as to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. I only went as far as 3RR because I am sure that WP:BLP permits me to, so I am doubly convinced that the last revert was acceptable under policy. If I even thought that I was edit-warring, I would have reverted myself. As it was, I left edit-war warnings on editor's talk pages and participated in the article's.

While nobody is unconditionally entitled to three reverts, there was no intent to edit war on my part, and this level of arbitrariness removes the appearance of impartiality among administrators. There are two separate policies which show that my actions are not worthy of a block, yet you've disregarded both and are attempting to substitute pure subjectivity for impartial rule of law. The best part is that, now that I have a black mark on my record, you've given Lionelt the go-ahead to use you again, just like he's used you before. Misplaced Pages is dying from lack of new editors, and this is precisely why.

I'm going to bed now, and by the time I wake up, I'll be unblocked. The only difference unblocking me would make is that it would reverse an injustice and foil a veteran editor's attempt at WP:BITEing a newbie. The original block was a mistake. Instead of sticking up for an administrator's error, you can reverse it. Nothing stops you from doing the right thing, and your conscience demands it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)}}