User talk:AllSidesMatter

February 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sutherland Springs church shooting, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss - please be aware that you are committing disruptive editing and will be reported to Admin on the boards for such unless you can give sufficient reason for why an objective fact -must- be excluded here -- in this case, the objective fact is that Steven Willeford is a member of the NRA.

Hi, I'm an admin. Don't add unsourced claims about living people and don't give undue weight to minor details just because they fit your preferred narrative. You can be blocked if you keep that up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin I cited my source now. Chicago Tribune, footnote #2.

I see. But now you're edit warring, instead of discussing matters on the article talk page as you should be doing. If you make more than three reverts in 24 hours you're gonna have a bad time. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, potential problem: the source you cited appears to be an opinion piece. We can't really use those for objective claims about living persons. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that between myself and Mandruss, it is he who is giving undue weight here. He has decided to start an editing battle over a detail that you yourself consider to be minor. I just added a factual detail; Mandruss is deleting facts which I believe goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's mission statement. He is also deleting names unduly. His reason for deleting Stephen's name *the first time Stephen is referenced in the article* (something that never should be done -- the first time someone is referenced, you include their name) was that Stephen's name appears later in the article as well. But he doesn't mind that Kelley's name appears multiple times, nor does he mind that all other names in this article are also repeated. Mandruss is bringing his politics into his edits while I am merely adding a minor, *factual* detail.

I did not start this edit war nor did I want this edit war. Mandruss brought it to me. I wonder if you're Mandruss. You're clearly taking his side here. I'll find a better source than the Chicago Tribune as the citation, then.

Sorry, but no. He's simply reducing the article to what is supported by existing sources, and he's not the only one reverting you. Per WP:BRD, when your edit was reverted, it was your responsibility to start a discussion (maintaining the status quo version of the article in the meantime). Instead, you reverted two different users.

If you have good evidence that I'm Mandruss, you can file a report at WP:SPI. However "everyone's out to get me" doesn't count as evidence and goes against our policy WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Mandruss either, but thought that the edit I reverted here included material that wasn't obviously relevant or encyclopedic. It could also be seen as a political statement, because the NRA is controversial at the moment, with various boycotts and threats of boycotts of companies that have links to the NRA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Sutherland Springs church shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia Bold, refer, discuss page: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." Identifying who the article is referring to, instead of leaving it a mystery, is an improvement. Tell me how I violated any terms of use or standards of practice by adding the mystery man's name the first time he is referenced. I acted in accordance to Wiki's policies here. I was dragged into an edit war with Mandruss by Mandruss. Are you also speaking to him about this? Can you prove it? -AllSidesMatter

It's "Bold, revert, discuss," not "Bold, revert twice, and discuss" or "Bold, revert four times, and discuss." While you have the theoretical right to argue with an admin about policy, it's a sign you really need to reconsider your actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the content of the edit, not the process after the initial edit was made. My edit was taken down for -content- purposes but the reason behind the revert is indefensible. No Wiki guideline/rule supports Mandruss's revert. I've already admitted I didn't know about the BOLD, revert, discuss process before this issue arose and now that I know about it, I will be adhering to it. AllSidesMatter (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not limited to BRD though -- an equal portion of it has to do with Mandruss's multiple illegitimate reverts AND his subtle threats of a ban. Those issues still are unresolved and I haven't seen one Admin address that part of the issue despite my bringing it to your attention several times. AllSidesMatter (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion at ANI. You should read it as it is essentially a "final warning" about your editing at the article. I would be remiss if I didn't add that your statements above about Mandruss are way out of line. The only place for you to discuss the content of the article is at the article Talk page and don't snipe at other users. If you do, you may be blocked for personal attacks, and your possible response that others are attacking you simply doesn't stand up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Could you please point to the comments about Mandurss I made that were out of line? I don't believe I ever attacked him ad hominem -- I did state he wasn't supporting his argument with Wiki rules/guidelines though. Is that what you're referring to?

BBB I am not sure why you're issuing a further warning here. I've already accepted responsibility of acting out of line with BRD and have stated I will follow it from now on. This statement was made before this "final warning."

What exactly is this "final warning" in response to? My reasonable edit, changing "a male civilian" to "local resident Stephen Willeford"? AllSidesMatter (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, not one Admin has even acknowledged or addressed my own grievances against Mandruss and his indefensible reasoning for repeatedly reverting my edits. This seems really one sided here, almost to the point of absurdity. AllSidesMatter (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this one-sided favoritism is due to the fact that Mandruss is an extended confirmed user and not actually on the merit of his argument in this case. AllSidesMatter (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to use talk pages

I noticed your conversation at ANI. You should read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages to get a basic handle on how to reply/thread your comments and otherwise make use of talk pages. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page. Jbh ^Talk 20:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this will be useful. Thanks for the tip. I'll read it later today.

Read it, very useful. AllSidesMatter (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments above - including not knowing why you're warned, continuing your attacks against Mandruss, assuming that you're not being treated fairly - I've indefinitely blocked you for your disruption, your battleground mentality, and your inability to listen to what editors and administrators tell you. As far as I'm concerned, you've amply demonstrated that you cannot be an asset to this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not the reason I am being blocked. Being new to Wiki editing, I wasn't aware of the BRD policy -- as soon as I was made aware of it (after reverting edits about 4 times) I stated multiple times to both the editor with the grievance and to Admins that I would adhere to BRD from that point on. I have not violated BRD since that point and at that point, I was not in danger of a ban. BBB has banned me for reasons he did not list that are likely not legitimate. He also listed Battleground mentality. This is patently untrue and disingenuous. In fact, I pointed out exactly how I wasn't engaging in a battleground mentality in list format. Apparently that was also ignored along with my grievance against Mandruss. I didn't attack Mandruss, either. I didn't attack other editors. When BBB told me that I did before the ban, I asked him to point to the instances where I did so because I knew that I hadn't done that. In response, he blocked me -- which is telling that BBB simply doesn't like my attitude and he's flexing his authority here. The edit war was very short lived and it stopped as soon as it was made clear to me that it was against the rules. This ban is in poor taste and goes against Wiki's ethics of assuming that others have good intentions. In short, there is not one defensible reason for this ban that I can see. If BBB would like to point out examples that back up the reasons he gave for the ban, I'm all ears. But right now this is just an abuse of authority AllSidesMatter (talk) 2:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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 Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Protip: blaming other people for your block is a bad idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian I did not earn this block. Thus, the reason for the block is not substantiated. The block happened when I was defending my case for the inclusion of Stephen's name, after the BRD issue was resolved.

BBB has not provided any proof that back his reasons for the block. This is a farce. I've already demonstrated that I did not actually engage in the behavior listed in the reasons for the block. I don't blame others for my behavior but I am sure that BBB blocked me purely on the basis of his dislike for my attitude. He hasn't pointed to ONE thing I said that was an attack. Nor have you. Nor has Mandruss. I think we need to get other admin involved, I'll reach out. AllSidesMatter (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a punitive block. Please see Wikipedia:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. This block was made under the guise of preventing future problems but the reality of the situation is I already agreed to adhere to BRD before this block. During the time between my agreement to adhere to BRD and the ban, I broke no rules and kept adhering to BRD. This ban is a punitive measure meant to punish me which goes against Wiki's guidelines. Until proof is presented for the reasons behind the ban, this ban is truly not legitimate. AllSidesMatter (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This approach is not going to work for you AllSidesMatter. One more diatribe and you'll lose access to the talk page as well. I suggest you read the guide to appealing blocks really carefully before posting here again.--regentspark (comment) 20:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for evidence supporting the reasons for a ban is not a diatribe. Pointing out that no supporting evidence has been given is not a diatribe either. A diatribe is a bitter, abusive speech. I wholeheartedly disagree with this ban and am making that clear; that is not bitterness. And I am not being abusive. I am merely asking for a rationale for the ban that goes beyond listing broad terms that don't actually apply to this situation. Asking for that proof is not cause to ban me from editing this page. I am seriously wondering why neither Ian nor BBB is willing to explain the ban AllSidesMatter (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the guidelines for appealing a block. I have demonstrated, as per the guidelines, "that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)" AllSidesMatter (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is very clearly explained here. And, reviewing the material, it seems like a solid rationale.--regentspark (comment) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you need to study WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DROPIT, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:AGF, with the intention of figuring out what you did wrong.

Blaming others is not going to work.

Arguing instead of paying attention is not going to work.

Fighting everything instead of working toward a solution is not going to work.

Maintaining your grudge against Mandruss is not going to work.

Assuming the worst from everyone you've interacted with is not going to work.

The evidence that you've failed in all of these things can be found on this very page. Arguing about it only further justifies it.

Unless and until you accept this, you will not be unblocked. The only privilege you have for this page is to appeal your block in a reasonable manner, and that does not include continuing the behavior that lead to your block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer: the behavior I have pointed to in my last post is a drain on community time and patience -- that is the damage and disruption to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll give this a very thorough effort then since my simpler appeal for evidence for the ban isn't working. Before I do, though, I'd like to point out one thing to Ian.thomson. I can understand this being a drain on your patience -- it is much easier just to have people accept whatever you say and not argue with you, I get that. I may be wrong in saying this but while I can understand your frustration with all this, I don't think the patience of two or three people on Wikipedia equals damage and disruption to the site. Furthermore, all that is needed on my end to just accept whatever you say without argument is for you to make clear just how I violated what you've said I violated. Right now, there's this whole argument precisely because no Admin is citing -how- I violated guidelines, only that I did.

I understand the concepts and rationales listed but I've said time and time again, they do not actually apply. I was not engaging in battleground mentality -- I clearly listed why this is the case in a previous post elsewhere... I don't know where to find it so I'll say it again: I was warned about Battleground mentality because I said to Mandruss that I would oppose his rationale for reverting my edits on all fronts. That may have been seen as combative, but the reality is (and I stated this immediately after being warned about Battleground mentality) that Mandruss hardly made any sort of attempt to justify his reverts and I felt his reverts weren't legitimate, so I stated I would oppose his reverts across the board. According to WP:Battlegroud I didn't actually violate anything that constitutes a battleground mentality.

Here is exactly how I've not earned the ban and why the ban should be lifted. Know that this is an earnest attempt to lift the ban that I think has been placed inappropriately; I am not here arguing for the sake of arguing:

BATTLEGROUNDS MENTALITY

1) I have not been acting out of a grudge towards Mandruss. I am defending my legitimate minor edit to a page. Since my edit has been suppressed and attacked constantly, I've had to constantly defend it. That is not acting out of a grudge.

2) No personal conflict was imported. This is purely a matter of a content edit. Mandruss has not given sufficient reason for his revert -- the reasons he gave I've clearly refuted with my own sound argument. That isn't a personal conflict.

3) This is also not an ideological battle. It is a matter of simply including a person's name in an article; the name of a person who was a critical factor in the event.

4) There is no prejudice, hatred, or fear. I did make the remark that I believe BBB banned me simply because he didn't like my attitude, but that isn't a prejudicial remark since I based that statement on observations of his behavior; it wasn't a preconceived notion.

5) I've not made any ad hominem attacks. I've not thrown insults around, I have not said one thing to intimidate, and I've not harassed anyone. This has dragged on because Mandruss's decision to unilaterally revert my edits is being upheld despite his lack of a sound argument as to why it should.

I've clearly demonstrated why BATTLEGROUNDS MENTALITY doesn't apply to this situation and isn't a legitimate rationale for the ban.

DROPIT

1) I have no grudge against Mandruss: I disagree with his unilateral reversions of my edits and he hasn't made much of an effort to explain it beyond "the name is too much information" which it clearly isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: Names are kind of its thing. When a person plays just about as big of a role in an event as the mass shooter and the mass shooter is named everywhere in the article, the person who stopped the shooter ought to be named as well and especially in the opening paragraph.

2) As I have no grudge against Mandruss, as it is merely a continued disagreement with his decision, DROPIT doesn't apply as a rationale for a ban.

WP:IDHT

1) I have been paying attention. Very close attention. You can't help but notice that fact in my arguments -- I clearly and at painstaking length addresss the issues and arguments Mandruss and others have brought up. It is inaccurate to say I haven't been paying attention. It would be accurate to say I didn't accept Mandruss's decision but there is no rule or guideline saying I have to accept or believe or do whatever anyone else tells me on Wikipedia. I might be wrong here but I think what's actually being said by referencing WP:IDHT is that I didn't just shut up about my issue when told to shut up.

2) Every time an admin or Mandruss referenced a Wiki page such as WP:Battlegroud or WP:IDHT, I've looked it up and at the very least more-than-skimmed it. In most cases, I read them thoroughly. I'm paying attention.

3) According to BBB, the block was applied because I wasn't listening to Admin, however that is not the case. When Admin referred me to pages for reference, I read those pages. When Admin suggested I take the disagreement between Mandruss and myself, I initiated that process by opening talks on the article Talk page. In fact, there isn't a case where I directly refused to listen to Admin. Presenting a defense for my side of things is not "not listening." Furthermore I wouldn't be able to provide the rebuttals or any sort of relevant disagreements that I have been so far if I didn't listen to what the Admins had to say. I think what BBB means by "not listening to Admins" is what I already stated -- that I didn't just shut up and accept what I was being told despite there being a lack of sound reasoning behind it. Which ties back into my thoughts that BBB is applying this ban as a -punitive- measure (which goes against the spirit of bans on Wikipedia) simply because he doesn't like my attitude. This is further supported by the fact that neither BBB nor Ian nor Mandruss nor any others involved in this matter so far have been able to point to specific instances of things I said that violate rules or guidelines. All that is being said in defense of the ban is -that- I violated guidelines but there is nothing being said about -how- I violated those guidelines.

Thus, "IDHT" and "not listening" has not been demonstrated by BBB or other Admin as a legitimate rationale for the ban.

NOTTHEM

This is more of a grey area where I did indulge in a bit of other-blaming however it's not really that clear cut. I violated this a bit and yet for some of it, it's not a simple matter of blaming others for my behavior. Here's why:

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Talk_about_yourself,_not_others :

1) I did violate "Do not complain about other people." This I admit to doing however it wasn't ever like "Mandruss sucks, this is why" or "Jesus, look at how unreasonable Mandruss is acting." I didn't paint Mandruss in a fantastic light, though, and implied he was being unreasonable so to that extent I think I did act in violation of this principal.

2) I did not violate "do not excuse what you did with what others did." I took full ownership of unwittingly breaking the BRD policy once I was made aware that it was a breach of policy. I did not say Mandruss made me do it nor did I imply anything of the sort. I have not made excuses for my breaking the BRD except to say that it only ever happened at all because I wasn't aware of the policy. As you all know, I just joined the other day and given that there are dozens and dozens of pages on guidelines and policy buried fairly deep and obscured to those who don't know the system by abbreviations such as WP:IDHT etc. And that was not even an excuse; I was pointing out why there was a breach in BRD policy to begin with -- if I had known about it I would have made sure not to violate it because I try to respect the rules of any community I try to join.

3) Assume good faith towards others... I have violated this policy. I don't assume there's much impartiality here. Mandruss is a longtime trusted editor and I just joined. Of course there will be a bias in his favor, even if it's just a slight one. Beyond that, no Admin has even acknowledged my grievances against Mandruss this entire time -- further proof to me that Admin immediately took sides here. I can understand the inclination to do so; Mandruss is a trusted name. That doesn't make it right, however. So those are my assumptions --based on observations, mind you-- that run against the spirit of this clause.

4) Assume others have assumed (and will assume) good faith towards you... I don't assume this, I haven't seen anything yet to make me think there is fair and impartial representation going on from the Admins. That may be incorrect, but I've laid out why I feel that way and my observations aren't unreasonable here.

I can see why you'd want me to read up on Not Them. I read it and as a result I better understand the spirit of this policy. At the same time, #3 and #4 of this clause don't really work unless Administration gives the impression that they are impartial, that they care about the grievances of -both- parties involved in the dispute, and that they aren't just going to steamroll the new guy.

I don't believe the extent to which I didn't follow the "NotThem" guideline at all times makes a block reasonable. To sometimes not follow a few of the clauses of a subsection of an article over a period of a handful of hours on one day is not enough to warrant a block.

These are all reasons why the block should not have been applied in the first place, but because I know you're looking for something from me that will tell you the block isn't necessary to stop further disruption, I have something to say to that as well.

This matter was in the process of being resolved via the Talk pages of both Mandruss and myself as well as the talk page on the article in question. I was prevented from reaching a resolution in the proper process because I was banned while responding to editors engaging in the article talk page. Once a clear consensus has been reached on the matter in the article talk page and once my side has been clearly stated, I will accept the end result. A ban is not necessary here -- the plan is to follow proper DISCUSS procedure to come to a consensus and let the chips fall where they may, regardless of my personal feelings on severely limiting exposure of the name of the man who stopped the mass shooter. AllSidesMatter (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple admins: "stop posting diatribes, stop blaming other people."

You: *posts super long diatribe blaming others*

Yes, you did grant a couple of points, but only enough to pretend that you're the victim when we don't immediately agree with everything else.

As a result of this, I've revoked your talk page access. I'm going to wait to post instructions for appealing your block at this point, and I encourage other admins to wait as well: you're clearly still too focused on fighting and not on cooperating to send appropriate appeals. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20773 was submitted on Mar 01, 2018 23:24:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: if you were unblocked, you would have to accept that there is a clear talk page WP:CONSENSUS against naming Willeford in the opening paragraph. It's also worrying that you have failed to assume good faith regarding the actions of Mandruss. Since I am not an administrator I can't unblock you, but wouldn't unblock without clear indications that lessons had been learned over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]