User talk:Joseph Rowe

this is a test message from JR to JR to see if it's working

Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

rude

This was rude and (I would say) a PA [1].Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have asked you, I am now warning you, if you make ant more disparaging comments about edds I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

[personal attack redacted]

Joseph Rowe (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You should not move comments after they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe, knock it off and stop insulting people or there is a good chance that you will end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

[personal attack redacted] Joseph Rowe (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not quite enough so far for a slam dunk indefinite block at ANI, but I will be watching. I have seen disruptive editors rage on about how they intend to keep doing what they have been doing in order to save face and then quietly stopping the actual behavior in order to avoid being blocked. One can only hope that Joseph Rowe is one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, of course it's not enough for a slam dunk, when you're not even on the court. There's no way I'm going to "quietly stop" what I've never been doing in the first place! And I'm not going to stop exposing [personal attack redacted] Well, you may be surprised to hear that I'm also alarmed about the prevalence of crazy conspiracy theories, many of which are obvious political tools, like Trump's "deep state." But folks, the way to oppose this kind of madness is not by Orwellian manipulation of language, and trying to discredit ALL conspiracy theories. Instead, the way to combat the cancerous proliferation of conspiracy theories is to encourage people to see how fascination with conspiracy theories — even the ones that ARE probable — are almost always facile, simple-minded substitutes for serious institutional analysis and criticism (cf Noam Chomsky on this subject). In other words, give people some credit for being able to see through the madness and the bullshit, instead of trying to manipulate their language. Well that's my best effort at speaking reason to this group. Those who have ears, let them hear. Joseph Rowe (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You appear to have written the above while logged out. That revealed what city you are in and what ISP you are using. To protect your privacy, I suggest that you delete the IP address, add your normal signature, and delete this comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that. Joseph Rowe (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not going to stop exposing the ... well, to be very polite, the misguided mission of the little minority clique"...

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting someone who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, what you say in this paragraph seems eminently reasonable to me. But what does it have to do me, or with my post? I haven't fixated on anyone. [personal attack redacted] Or are you warning me about someone fixating on me? In other words, security in my logins? If so, thanks again. But if the phrase "no one else sees their actions as heroic," is supposed to apply to me... well, for one thing I don't do this in order to seem heroic, but as a simple public service... and actually I did get a couple of unsolicited, spontaneous emails from other editors thanking me for my efforts, so I'm not as alone in this as you might like to think. In fact, I'm convinced that a sizeable majority of editors would agree with me, and find a way to either bring this clique to reason, or over-rule them, and restore my edits ... IF I knew how to get them together.. and the much-bigger IF we all had the time to master all this complicated Wikipedia protocol. If I've "fixated" on anything, it's this: the main reason Wikipedia has become a notoriously unreliable source of information on any controversial subject is that it has a built-in bias that favors editors who have no particular qualifications except for 1) plenty of time on their hands, for mastering the cumbersome and over-complicated Wikipedia protocols, acronyms, and jargon; and 2) a strong motivation, not to provide information or enlightenment, but to influence and manipulate public opinion. This is well illustrated by the conspiracy theory page, as I see it.Joseph Rowe (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

wp:rfc then a post just linking to the RFC at WP:NPOVN, WP:FTN, WP:VP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait...what? Actually ask the Wikipedia community what they think instead of claiming that a bunch of people agree with you but for some strange reason refuse to say so? Now now. We can't have that. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "what does it have to do me, or with my post?", did someone hack your account and post the words "I'm not going to stop exposing the misguided mission of the little minority clique" without your permission? Should we shut down your account per WP:COMPACC? Or are you just pretending that you don't understand the connection between your posting "I'm not going to stop exposing..." and my replying with "...who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

[personal attack redacted] As I said before, the majority whom I believe are in agreement with me seem implicit in the history of this discussion, and they have said so in different ways ... Why can't I produce them, and why aren't they showing up now, you ask? Probably because, like me, they long ago got tired of dealing with a tiny band of edit-protocol adepts with a lot of time on their hands, and a mission to discredit all conspiracy theories — by using a technique of nullifying even my mildest and most commonsense edits by starting an edit war, instead of trying to negotiate the matter with me, and then accusing ME of edit-warring — which one must admit is quite clever, and perfectly plausible, since I'm only one person dealing with [personal attack redacted]. Perhaps someday an authentic consensus will appear and bring reason to this subject. If so, I'll be there to help, if I can. But in the meantime, you'll probably be relieved to hear that I'm fed up with trying to argue with folks who have gone so far out on a limb of denial of logic, semantics, and common sense that they can no longer see the way back, or even admit that they're out on a limb. Again, those who have ears, let them hear. Over and out. Joseph Rowe (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to learn more about how Wikipedia as a community makes decisions, see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RfC. And yes, the Wikipedia community exists and we do make decisions whether you accept that fact or not.

If you wish to learn more about what is and is not edit warring, see WP:EW. You may also wish to look over some recent cases at WP:ANEW and see what happens when editors edit war.

Regarding your comment "a group of about 9 or 10 who take turns reverting my edits without serious discussion or negotiation", without commenting on whether this is happening in your case, we know that this can happen and we have policies designed to prevent it. We have a couple of essays that, while not policies or guidelines, may help you to recognize when this is happening and to recognize when you only think it is happening. The essays are at WP:TAGTEAM and WP:1AM. (In a nutshell, WP:RfC is the antidote to WP:TAGTEAM.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This post has no signature, but I want to thank whomever the author is. It's the first civil, informative, and constructive attempt at dialogue with me that has occurred, since I began dealing with what I believe is a tag-team. If it isn't a tag-team, then where are their efforts at dialogue and negotiation? Did I miss something? And if so, why wasn't I alerted, since I've elected to follow discussion of this entry? Joseph Rowe (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

close discussions

You should not really add new comments to a closed discussion as you did here [[2]], adding it back just makes this worse.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Regarding the words "the main reason Wikipedia has become a notoriously unreliable source of information on any controversial subject is that it has a built-in bias...":
(posted by Joseph Rowe on 09:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[3] -- just so he doesn't pretend he didn't write that)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[4][5][6][7]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'd like to point out that your juxtaposition of that quote of Jimmy Wales's righteous condemnation of "lunatic charlatans" (a kind of straw-man knockdown with which it's hard to disagree) with YOUR list of "we are biased..." is misleading. Are you suggesting that Jimmy Wales subscribes to THOSE biases? Against Acupuncture ?! and Homeopathy !? Also, there's this little gem:

"We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories."

In other words, actual conspiracies were never discovered to be true by first being a theory, and then being proven? Their actuality was perhaps given by divine revelation?

Give me a break. [personal attack redacted]Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Acupuncture and Homeopathy proponents are exactly the kind of "lunatic charlatans" Jimbo was talking about. Read [8][9][10][11] or go to his talk page and ask him yourself. And no, Jimbo has not specifically come out against Laundry Balls or Microlepton Fields. I didn't say that Jimbo was against those things (even though ho might be if you asked him). I said that Wikipedia is against those things. Which we are. We are never going to say that laundry balls are effective because they simply aren't.

Finally, you keep redefining the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" in a way that goes against what 99% of English speakers means when they use the phrase, and against the definition in our Conspiracy theory article, then acting gobsmacked whenever anyone uses the ordinary meaning of that phrase. It hinders communication when you don't use the ordinatry definition for common phrases. Yes, you are free to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No Sir, "redefining the phrase 'conspiracy theory'" is precisely what I'm NOT doing ... I'm pointing out that the phrase has two different meanings: 1) the primary dictionary definition, which is neutral; and 2) the pejorative sense, which (only since 1963, to my knowledge) has been used with increasing frequency. I've often used it in the latter way myself, but always in a context which makes it clear that I mean it pejoratively. Your contention that 99% of English speakers always mean it pejoratively — implying that they believe it is impossible for there to exist any theory of conspiracy which is probable — is totally without foundation. If that were true, then how do you account for the fact than no respected dictionary of the English language has bowed to this, and that even the ones who have taken notice of it, always list the pejorative sense as secondary? It is you and your allies who are attempting to redefine the phrase, not me. And you are doing this by maintaining, on this page, a deliberate obfuscation of the fact that the phrase has TWO meanings.

[personal attack redacted] [if any reader who is outside of, or new to this discussion doubts my theory, and has editing privileges, then I invite you to make this experiment: add something like the following very mild and reasonable phrase, or whatever you think might be a better equivalent: "Disambiguation: by official policy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; therefore,this article is not to be confused with most dictionary definitions of 'conspiracy theory', which are neutral as to the probable truth or falsity of all conspiracy theories" ... if I'm wrong, the edit will stick. If I'm right, your edit will be reverted, and if you try again, the tag-team will come after you.] The reason it can't be me who does such an edit, is because I've riled what I call the epistemological rhinoceros, by getting riled myself, which I confess was unwise... (I'd be happy to be wrong....;-) I admit to having been impolite, but I've never knowingly made a personal insult, as has been charged against me. I never said any of these people are stupid, only that their groupthink (which I call the rhinoceros) is stupid. In fact, I don't even privately believe anyone here is stupid — it's not impossible, nor even at all that uncommon, for intelligent people to get caught up in groupthink. Joseph Rowe (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As for your claim that Jimmy Wales personally supports the success of those who got control of the acupuncture page, and declared it to be a pseudoscience... Ill check on this when I have time; but for now I'll take your word for it. And yes, I do consider it a very bad sign, if indeed the founder and presumably the most influential person in this community does have such narrow-minded views, as the belief that practitioners of Chinese medicine are pseudo-scientists and "lunatic charlatans". [personal attack redacted] Finally — I actually rather enjoyed the Carrollian rhapsody at the end of your post — it was a lot more fun, and makes better sense than [personal attack redacted].

Dictionary definitions:

• Dictionary.com[12]

A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse.

A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters.

The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public:

• Merriam Webster:theory

A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

• The Free Dictionary:[13]

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied

• Collins Dictionary:[14]

A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely.

• Lexico (Oxford):[15]

A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

• Your Dictionary:[16]

Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition)

• Wiktionary:[17]

A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s]

(Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish.

Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form.

...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see:

• Britannica: [18]

Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy...

The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for taking the trouble to illustrate my point!

With one or two exceptions these dictionary definitions are overwhelmingly neutral (and perhaps excepting the first one's eccentric usage illustration.) What do I mean by neutral? I mean that they do not claim, as does the Wikipedia page, that other explanations are always more probable, and reasonable. As for your attempt to find an ally in the Brittanica Encyclopedia entry, I haven't checked, but I'll bet that somewhere in that article, the authors make it clear that the pejorative meaning is not the only meaning — exactly what the Wikipedia article attempts to conceal. And even in the unlikely event that Britannica did fail to clarify this, it would only mean that they, too, have been captured by the epistemological rhinoceros. I might add this entry from my own copy of the American Heritage fourth edition, which many, including myself, consider to be the best English-language dictionary ever published:

Conspiracy theory: a theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance, rather than an individual or isolated act.

Again, it's neutral in the sense of not taking a position as to the likelihood or otherwise of all conspiracy theories, which Wikipedia does. And in all this discussion, neither you nor any of your cohorts have ventured to answer this key question: if you allow that at least some real criminal conspiracies do exist, and have been well-proven (for example in courts of law); then surely you're not denying that at least in some cases (perhaps even in the majority of them) the investigators who eventually proved the conspiracy began with a theory of conspiracy which was highly probable in their view, and then found enough evidence to prove the conspiracy? Then, pray tell, why is a theory of conspiracy not the same thing as a conspiracy theory in this context? [One imagines a District Attorney lecturing his prosecutors and detectives: "Ladies and gentlemen, I need you to do your best, and be very smart, so as to investigate and crack open as many gangland conspiracies as you can. But I don't want you to begin your investigations with any conspiracy theories." Joseph Rowe (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am getting tired of your snide comments about "you and your pals" and "neither you nor any of your cohorts". Knock it off, please. And while you are at it, please stop conflating "the usage that most English speakers mean when they use a phrase" (my actual claim) with "the only possible meaning, completely excluding all other meanings no matter what the context is" (your straw man).

• Burning Man is not a man who is burning.
• The Black Panthers are not panthers that are colored black.
• Chinese Checkers are not checkers from China. They are a form of Halma from Germany.
• The Red Scorpions are not scorpions that are colored red.
• A Horned Toad is not a toad with horns. It is a lizard with spines.
• The Silver Dollar Group is not a group of silver dollars.
• A Mountain Chicken is not a chicken from the mountains.
• English horns are not horns that come from England. They are woodwinds that come from Poland.
• Grape nuts are not nuts made from grapes.
• A Buffalo Wing isn't the wing or any other part of a buffalo.
• A Conspiracy theory isn't a theory about a conspiracy.

You cannot simply combine the literal meaning of two words of a compound descriptive phrase and proclaim that you have discovered the meaning of the phrase. Just google "Grape Nuts", "Conspiracy theory" or "Buffalo Wing" and start reading the search results you will see how these phrases are commonly used. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My "snide" comments, Guy Macon? I wasn't thinking of "pals" as snide, only ironic. But just to show you and everyone that I'm not intending what you think I am, I just edited "pals" to "allies", OK? But it wouldn't be right to change "cohort". Rather, I suggest consulting a dictionary. The primary meanings are neutral and not derogatory; in my Apple dictionary, the derogatory meaning is only the third one — and I did not mean it that way, though I realize it is often used that way, and I can see why, in this sometimes overheated argument, you interpreted it that way. I was simply trying to indicate my belief that the opposition to my edits was not coming from spontaneous, independent reactions of several vigilant editors, but from members of a team, with a common purpose: in other words, cohorts.

Well, your long list of examples is informative enough (though a bit overkill). However, it's the very last one on the list which shows that we're finally getting to the core of the matter, which I already alluded to in my example of a District Attorney. If I understand you correctly, you see nothing wrong or bizarre about my hypothetical D.A.'s language; and your essential claim is that "conspiracy theory" never (or almost never: no more than 1% of the time, you say) means the same thing as "theory of conspiracy" — a claim which implies that most dictionaries are out of touch with current usage (highly unlikely, though not impossible), since they don't list the pejorative meaning as the preferred meaning. [And let us emphasize the fact that, in this context, we are talking about meaning as usage.] Well sir, I simply don't agree with this claim; and you certainly haven't produced any evidence that could prove it. But then, I haven't produced evidence for the contrary, either, (other than pointing out the current practice of the best dictionaries, which is admittedly not decisive proof). So far, then, it's just my opinion against yours. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, let us suppose (at least for now) that dictionaries are a bit out of touch, and that (beginning approximately after 1963) usage has indeed evolved to the point where nowadays, a conspiracy theory almost never means the same thing as a theory of conspiracy. But you don't seem to realize that this is not my main point of contention. My main objection, is that the people who are reverting my edits of this page apparently do not want readers of Wikipedia to know that — in your own terms — conspiracy theory does not mean the same thing as theory of conspiracy. I say apparently, because every time I've tried to convey this information, in various ways (though not yet exactly in the way just mentioned), my edits get reverted. As I said before, I'd like to be mistaken about this; [personal attack redacted]. Joseph Rowe (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OK Guy Macon, I hope that this compromise edit — pointing out a distinction which you yourself agree with — will gain your support. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories

I'm sorry I didn't notice the discussion that was going on Conspiracy theory talk page before it closed. I was busy defending my own new page, "Philosophy of conspiracy theories" against a call for deletion. I agree with many of your points (although do also think that the comment at the end, distinguishing words from concepts, is worth considering). I can tell that you find this frustrating, and I can certainly understand. You may find support for much of you want to say in the philosophical literature, so do check out my page, and the links there, for sources. I appreciate what you are trying to do, and, as I said, I substantially agree with much of what you say. So I do hope you remain involved. It is in that spirit that I urge you to make every effort remain as polite as possible, even when you find other people's ideas to be inane. Sometimes they are. But it is best for us to just make the best case for our position as we can, while being as generous to others as possible. I find it helps to write a response, and then wait, come back later and take out anything that may be taken badly, and only then submit it. You might take a look at the conversation regarding the proposal for deletion of my page for a (perhaps imperfect) illustration. Best wishes. Knuteson (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Knuteson, and thank you for your reply. I found your page to be excellent, and very necessary to the discussion of conspiracies. I hope you can establish a link to it on the Conspiracy Theory page. How refreshing, to have a knowledgeable and intelligent voice like yours in this discussion! I agree with you that I should have been more polite. I shouldn't allow myself to get riled by the epistemological rhinoceros that we're both facing... but I'm inexperienced in Wikipedia editing, and I (naively) had no notion of what it's like to deal with [personal attack redacted] If I find the time, I'll explore the measures given in the above link about how do deal with tag-teams. All the best in your efforts, and my next step in this public service will be to see if I can find some outside support for your page. I find it appalling that people tried to have it deleted, and when I studied the Delete arguments on that page (after it was closed, unfortunately, or I'd have give you my vote), I was totally convinced that most of the motivations were [personal attack redacted]. Cheers and bon courage... Joseph Rowe (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank's for your kind comments. I'm glad you didn't take my comments in the wrong way. I'm not intimately familiar with the disputes that you have been involved in, but whenever somebody indicates that they've taken offense at something, even if one thinks it is an overreaction, I think it is wise to treat the issue with even more care. It's best to let the strength of one's reasons do the work. Peace be with you. Knuteson (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

misrepresentation

It is against our rules to claim user has said something they have not WP:TPNO. Please do not claim a user supports your edits when they have not done so again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Then please follow that rule yourself, and stop claiming that I said Guy Macon supported my EDIT. I said (and gave clear evidence) that he agreed with a distinction, on which my edit was based. Agreeing with a principle, vs agreeing with an action that invokes that principle are not the same thing, and the difference is not trivial at all.Joseph Rowe (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The edit in question is here:[19]

ಠ_ಠ This behavior is especially pernicious because there are people who trust my judgement and might be inclined to leave in a change that I agreed to. (There are others who are inclined to disagree with anything I write because just I wrote it, so it kind of balances out.)  :(

For the record, I NEVER agreed to the change that Joseph Rowe labeled with "Please don't automatically revert it, without seeing my discussion with Guy Macon, who agrees with this distinction." Next time, ask me before assuming that I agree with a particular edit. I don't even agree that "theory of conspiracy" is a thing outside of this talk page. Actual humans tend to use the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Also for the record, I NEVER claimed that Guy Macon "supports [my] edits". See my other comments. Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"...without seeing my discussion with Guy Macon, who agrees with this distinction." Yes you said he agreed with the distinction you added.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

And you, like Humpty Dumpty, think you can succeed in exactly what Alice was talking about: i.e., making the statement "agrees with my distinction" into "agrees with my edit, based on that distinction" ... Joseph Rowe (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a theory as to why every single person who examined your edit came to the conclusion that "Please don't automatically revert it, without seeing my discussion with Guy Macon" was a claim that I agreed with the content of the edit? Any explanation at all as to why not a single person agrees with you? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually I do have a theory. It was partly because the people you mention didn't read carefully, and also because they didn't bother to look at the discussion which I pointed them to, where it was abundantly clear that I couldn't possibly be claiming that you were an outright supporter of my edit, because we disagree on just about everything, except for that distinction which you yourself invoked. If I was really trying to mislead people, then why would I point them to a page that undermines that claim very clearly??? Yes, I had genuinely hoped that you would agree at least not to block this effort at compromise by doing a revert yourself, and also that people would at least stop and think, before doing another knee-jerk reversion of my edit. That may be why I neglected to spell it out for careless speed-readers, and say something like, "Guy Macon agrees with the distinction itself, but he may or may not agree with allowing it to be added onto the opening remarks of the page. I hope he will at least not block it, but of course I can't be sure." Also, it's a fallacy to say that "every single person who examined" my remark interpreted it that way. How can you possibly know that? Most people who read these talk pages surely don't post, and at least one who did post didn't mention how they interpreted that remark. Of course I haven't offered decisive evidence for my claim either, which is that there exists a silent majority of readers and editors out there, who not only read my words more carefully than my critics, but agree with me, with Knuteson, and with a number of other editors who have spontaneously contacted me to thank me for my efforts. If I have the time and energy one day, I'll put this claim to the test, and overturn what I believe to be an illusory consensus of [personal attack redacted] Such people not only believe that the pejorative usage of CT is the only existing usage; they don't want readers to know that some authorities (including the most respected dictionaries) think otherwise. And they pervert the principle of Wikipedia not being a dictionary, by turning it on its head, and offering that as an excuse for concealing this fact. (In other words, "Wikipedia is not intended to be a dictionary, therefore we're going to block editors from pointing out how that principle applies to this entry...") I suspect that at least some of these people (I don't say all) have a huge need for security, in the form of a handy polemical stick, with which to beat away uncomfortable challenges (such as those offered by film-maker Oliver Stone), instead of having to think for themselves, investigate, and make up their own minds about obscure and complex matters.Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So your first theory as to why every single person who examined your edit came to the same (you claim wrong) conclusion is that they all, every one of them, "didn't bother to look at the discussion which [you] pointed them to". That would include me, who participated is that discussion. That does not appear to be a plausible theory. And your second theory is that we are all "caught up in a form of dogmatic groupthink". This "groupthink" would include me and Slatersteven, who regularly disagrees with me on various issues. We tend to disagree in a civil manner, because we clearly both want what is best for the encyclopedia, but there are many examples of him concluding that I am completely wrong or vice versa. This too does not appear to be a plausible theory.

Here is my theory: I am not seeing any deliberate dishonesty other than the usual lying to yourself that all humans engage in (we have a page on it at Fundamental attribution error which I urge everyone to read).

In my opinion, this is an example of the malleability of memory. You clearly wanted those reading your edit comment to believe that I support the change you made. Everyone understood you just fine on that point, and no, they are not all wrong. Later, when criticized for your behavior, your memory about your motivations changed. This is a well-known effect; see Misinformation effect and Egocentric bias. It happens to all of us. Alas, you think your recollection is far better than research says anyone's recollection actually is.

At this point, we could have simply stopped discussing this with you. Wikipedia reallly doesn't care whether you understand how your mind works. All we care about is that you violated one of our rules and whether you are likely to do it again. I believe that you are smart enough that you will never again claim that someone supports your edit without asking them first.

Alas, that wasn't the end of it, because you proceeded to engage in conspiracist ideation and accuse those who oppose you of a conspiracy against you ("they don't want readers to know", "hidden agenda", "motivated, not by any serious desire to protect the values of the community, but to punish me for my arguments", "When a band of people get caught up in that mindset, it's called fanaticism" "attempt to discredit dissent by dismissing dissenters as lone deviates", "I'm not going to stop exposing the ... well, to be very polite, the misguided mission of the little minority clique"). And that's a problem which may require administrator intervention in the form of a topic ban or a block.

Finally, I noticed one thing you wrote in passing:

"I suspect that at least some of these people (I don't say all) have a huge need for security, in the form of a handy polemical stick, with which to beat away uncomfortable challenges (such as those offered by film-maker Oliver Stone)"

Now we see where you are going with all of this. Oliver "JFK conspiracy deniers are in denial"[20] Stone isn't pushing conspiracy theories. Oh no. He is offering "uncomfortable challenges". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sir, I've carefully considered your very personal allegation of my "false memory syndrome", while managing, with some effort, not to take offense — but I found no validity there. I did this because I'm always open to the possibility that I have more to learn about how my mind works — [personal attack redacted] [Plus, you've conveniently ignored the question as to why I would then undermine my own effort to deceive others by pointing them to a discussion which makes it clear that you probably wouldn't go so far as to support the edit!!] But the moat amazing thing of all crops up in your last four posts, in which you conveniently offer me — on a platter as it were — a most convenient illustration of [personal attack redacted] using the label of "conspiracy theory" as a substitute for rational argument against a theory — a crude and clumsy weapon to be sure, whose function is to attempt to discredit any dissent which is apparently too much of a strain for certain people to debate by using only reason and facts. Not unlike the circular reasoning that some extremist Freudians used to use: "The fact that you disagree with our theory of repression is evidence of your own repression, and your resistance to admitting it". QED. ... oh, and by the way, I forgot to say thanks (sincerely!) for the link to the excellent and compelling essay by Oliver Stone! If it was supposed to discredit him in any way as a "conspiracy theorist" in your terms, it did the very opposite for me, and I suuspect for many others. I honestly can't figure out why you added that link — are we in Rashomon territory here? Joseph Rowe (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? You are actually, with a straight face, claiming that the words "This is a very necessary clarification. Please don't automatically revert it, without seeing my discussion with Guy Macon, who agrees with this distinction."[21] meant "I hope GM at least won't block the edit"? As if I need to read the conversation that I just had with you? I retract everything I wrote about a possible unconscious bias on your part. I am now convinced that you know that you are lying, and that you are lying about something that is easily checked. With that, I am done discussing this with you, except for one final question. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT AGREE TO NEVER AGAIN CLAIM THAT ANOTHER EDITOR AGREES WITH YOU WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THEM? Just give me a straight answer. Yes, we all know that you don't think you did anything wrong so you don't have to say it again. All I care about is whether you intend to repeat the behavior or avoid the behavior. If you will make a heartfelt commitment to not do it again I am prepared to post a recommendation at ANI that the case be closed with no blocks or topic bans. I will interpret a non-answer as an indication that you refuse to make a commitment not to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a need to believe I'm a deliberate liar (for reasons of your own, which I can only guess at — could it be because I don't dismiss Oliver Stone as a "conspiracy theorist" in the pejorative sense?). Again, I deny that I've done any lying whatsoever; nor have I deliberately misled anyone by being disingenuous. And I'm certainly not going to offer a diplomatic lie now, by saying I'll never again do something which I know I did not do. However, I will agree (and in fact have already promised myself) to be a good deal more careful from now on, and leave no ambiguity whatsoever (even for those who read either carelessly, or with angry bias, or in bad faith) about whether another editor really supports my edit; or whether I think they might at least not be against it, because we agree about a specific point. Will that get you off my back? Joseph Rowe (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My reply to those totally unfounded charges is presented both here, and on that page. And I would request admins to consider the possibility that the heated atmosphere of this discussion (for which I have previously accepted my share of responsibility — though as far as I know none of my interlocutors has done likewise) has led to a situation where these accusers' real motivation is simply to shut me up, not because I've insulted or misled anyone, but because they're personally angry at my forceful style of argument, whose implications make them uncomfortable. Joseph Rowe (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have zero anger towards you. My internal emotional state would best be described as "detached bemusement" toward your antics. I also don't consider your style of argument to be "forceful". I would characterize it as "tedious", "wordy", and "unconvincing". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

[personal attack redacted].Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

NO. I reject your self-serving claim that you can diagnose the internal mental states of people over the internet and that you know what they think better than they know themselves. Nice hole, by the way. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I can only guess at others' mental states from what they say, certainly not "diagnose". But thanks anyway, for the link to the law of holes page, which I find excellent. But I would claim that its only valid relevance here, is that we've both been equally involved in digging a rather silly hole here, and I for one, am ready to stop. Over and OUT. Cheers.Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I noticed the ANI discussion and checked to see that you were informed of the discretionary sanctions that apply to WP:ARBPS topics—notice was given on 16 October 2019. Collaboration is required at Wikipedia. If you repeat edits such as those at Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) without first gaining a clear consensus on the talk page, I will issue an indefinite block. Furthermore, if consensus is not gained in a reasonable time (say a week), it is necessary to drop the topic because other editors are not required to debate issues endlessly. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

IN response to your ANI comment please read wp:brd and wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I really really would shut up now if I were you. "I accept the rules say I was wrong and I have to accept that but I am not wrong" is not going to win friends and influence people, rather the opposite.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No one who has read my replies objectively and without previous bias will accept your caricature quotation of my words. If I have any hope of "winning friends and influencing people" it's by the truth of my arguments, thank you. If I have any evidence that merely shutting up can cause people to read those arguments more carefully, and in better faith, I'll be more than happy to do so. Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages#Indenting. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph Rowe reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Warned). Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Take page

It is bad form (and indeed against the rules WP:REDACT).Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am interested in building an encyclopedia, which is the only reason I ever got involved in editing — but I realize that I must give evidence of that in my reply here. I think I understand why the heated atmosphere got to the point where people wanted to block me. I made two general types of mistakes, which I seriously regret. First type: I failed to realize that I was violating a policy about reverts: long-established edits have priority over new edits, so that if even one revert occurs, I should take it as a sign that I need to establish a clear consensus before I try to edit that text again. Better yet: if I have any reason at all to think that someone might disagree with my edit, I should not publish it in the first place, until I build a consensus. I made this mistake over and over again, and people got understandably angry. By the time I realized the mistake, and promised not to do it again, it was probably too late. (Also, there was a secondary mistake of this type, namely proper indentation.) Second type of mistake: I got carried away several times, in heated debates about a matter which turned out to be far more controversial than I realized at first. My effort to improve the Conspiracy Theory article seemed to me to be essentially a matter of common sense, and semantic clarity. I've never disagreed with anything in the content of the article itself, and I think rather well of it, for the most part — I just wanted to point out that, according to virtually all dictionaries I've seen, there exist several neutral meanings (i.e., usages) of the term CT, besides the pejorative one. When people disagreed over and over with what I saw (and still see) as essentially an important semantic clarification, it was very frustrating to me. I got reactive, and impolite in my responses. Of course, I should have realized that this is not the best way to go about getting a consensus, especially about a topic so controversial as CT. Among all my interlocutors' replies to my arguments, there was only one that seemed to me to have any validity: someone pointed out that my clarification was unnecessary, because there was already a dismbiguation link at the beginning of the article. "Well, they have a point," I thought to myself, "perhaps what I'm trying to say has already been done there. I should have looked at that link before." But when I went there, I saw that there was no mention at all of the non-pejorative dictionary meaning in general, only that of the legal usage. I therefore offered a new disambiguation. But this was still before I'd become aware of the policy of giving priority to established edits, and it was not long before it was reverted by my previous opponents. I made a sincere effort to dialogue with them, and then gave up on my attempted edits, but I suppose that by then they were so angry at what they saw as deliberate disruption, that they weren't interested in my efforts to dialogue. Later, when I was accused of ad hominem remarks, I replied to some which I consider to be misunderstandings, and asked my accuser to give examples. They did so, but posted them in a different place, below, which caused me to overlook it. When I noticed it, I wrote a reply, in which I acknowledged and apologized for those which were clearly ad hominems — but by then it was too late, for when I hit the Publish button, I was told that I'd been blocked. Some of my interlocutors have accused me of using Wikipedia as a forum for some sort of fringe agenda. The only agenda I have is offering what I see as improvements of Wikipedia articles — in this case by making things clear, so that people are not misled into thinking that the pejorative usage of a term is the only existing usage — even though it has probably become the most frequent one. If this is "fringe", then all my dictionaries are also fringe, including the highly-esteemed American Heritage, 4th and 5th editions, which many consider to be the best one-volume English dictionary ever published. Now, I realize that I have to be more careful, and avoid hasty, reactive replies, when I feel that people are not getting my point — doubly so on controversial matters, when I find myself in a small minority (I say "minority" instead of "alone" because several editors, peope whom I don't know, spontaneously thanked me for my attempted edits.) I therefore respectfully request to be unblocked. Joseph Rowe (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2019 (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.

I'd just like to add that if my reviewer feels that I've neglected to fully respond to some aspect of this case, I'll be happy to do so. Joseph Rowe (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't go off of how one reinterprets a word by using the dictionary (which is academically weak), it goes off of how professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources use a term. Your argument "then all my dictionaries are also fringe" only reinforces my view that you aren't paying attention, as right on this very page, Guy Macon explains the problem with that kind of "research." To quote:

* Burning Man is not a man who is burning.

* The Black Panthers are not panthers that are colored black.

* Chinese Checkers are not checkers from China. They are a form of Halma from Germany.

* The Red Scorpions are not scorpions that are colored red.

* A Horned Toad is not a toad with horns. It is a lizard with spines.

* The Silver Dollar Group is not a group of silver dollars.

* A Mountain Chicken is not a chicken from the mountains.

* English horns are not horns that come from England. They are woodwinds that come from Poland.

* Grape nuts are not nuts made from grapes.

* A Buffalo Wing isn't the wing or any other part of a buffalo.

* A Conspiracy theory isn't a theory about a conspiracy.

You cannot simply combine the literal meaning of two words of a compound descriptive phrase and proclaim that you have discovered the meaning of the phrase. Just google "Grape Nuts", "Conspiracy theory" or "Buffalo Wing" and start reading the search results you will see how these phrases are commonly used.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I've considered your reasons for declining very carefully, doing my best to understand your point of view. In return, I respectfully request that you also carefully consider my argument, given here as briefly as I can manage, which explains why I'm neither claiming, nor attempting to do, what you say I am. In any event, if you don't see fit to unblock me this time, I promise not to waste your time, or mine, by asking you a third time (though if the block doesn't expire in a month or so, I may consider contacting the arbitration committee, if that seems useful).

First point:  I am indeed "using the dictionary," as you say —  but not as original research, nor as a challenge to any academic citations, nor — most importantly of all — for  "re-interpreting" any word or phrase whatsoever. I'm using it strictly as documentation, for pointing out the existence of different usages of the term"conspiracy theory." I've never claimed that any one of these usages is better, or truer than another; nor have I "claimed to find the meaning" of the phrase CT by pointing out the existence of different usages. Quite the contrary: in my view, every time we intend to use any phrase, and then either  remember or discover, that more than one usage exists — especially when one usage happens to be pejorative, another value-neutral, still another legal, etc —   it should disabuse us of any illusion that we have discovered the meaning of the phrase, and encourage us to be as clear as possible about how we mean the phrase, in the context of what we are about to say.  Second point: Guy Macon claims that a "conspiracy theory is not a "theory about a conspiracy." I hope you noticed that I agreed with him about this from the very first! However, I suspect that you have not noticed a crucial ambiguity of meaning of this claim (one which I myself failed to point out before). When we say  that a conspiracy theory  is not a theory about a conspiracy, are we saying A) that a "conspiracy theory," in the most common, pejorative sense, does not have the same meaning as a "theory about a conspiracy"? OR, are we saying B) that no usage of the term "conspiracy theory" means the same as "a theory about a conspiracy"? I agree with A, and have said so. But how could anyone, on reflection, agree with B? It would imply that all the best dictionaries are mistaken because no non-pejorative usage even exists.  To recap and sum up: I'm not saying that the neutral meaning, as listed among usages in most dictionaries, is the most frequent one; nor that it's the best one; nor that it's the "real meaning". I would also agree that the pejorative use has become by far the most common one — I've often used it that way myself, though I make a scrupulous to be clear that that is what I'm doing. Yes, the pejorative usage is usually what people mean. But that doesn't mean other usages have ceased to exist. What's wrong with advocating that we be especially careful about which one we mean?   
Joseph Rowe (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are several problems with your unblock request:

1. It is written like a persuasive essay. You are arguing to convince me that "conspiracy theory" can have non-pejorative uses. That's fine for a talk page but not an unblock request.
2. You have not addressed the reason for your block.
3. You have not indicated that you understand why you were blocked.
4. You have not indicated how you will edit Wikipedia in the future.

I suggest that you read WP:GAB and follow the guidance there. By the way, Arbcom does not handle random unblock requests. They only review very specific kinds of blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Joseph Rowe contains two very important bits of information -- if you are willing to listen.

First, the ANI case (along with your own talk page) contains the reasons why you were blocked. As the second admin to review your appeal noted, "You have not indicated that you understand why you were blocked".

Second, it contains my 100% accurate prediction of your behavior. You just did exactly what I predicted you would do:

"The probable result [of an indefinite block] is one or two unblock requests consisting of more longwinded 'you're wrong but I can't expect you to understand that and obviously the problem couldn't be on my end' responses"

Third, I explained exactly what you need to do to be unblocked:

"Now it may be that I am wrong and that Joseph Rowe actually is capable of and willing to follow our rules. if so, then he will post an unblock request that shows that he understands what he did wrong and a sincere commitment to not do it again. If I see that, I will support a WP:ROPE unblock, and I expect that others here will support it as well."

Let me emphasize this:
YOU WERE NOT BLOCKED BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG, SO EVEN IF YOU CONVINCE EVERYONE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT YOU WILL STAY BLOCKED.
You are wrong, but that matters little. There are many people on Wikipedia who are a lot "wronger" than you are who are not blocked. And, in case you haven't noticed, ANI never issues any ruling on who is right or who is wrong. They only deal with user behavior, and the person who was right often ends up blocked because of their behavior.
YOU WERE BLOCKED FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR.
Again, the only way you will ever get unblocked is to show that you understand what you did wrong and to make a sincere commitment to not do it again.

Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before appealing again. Read it three times. Then print it out and read it three more times. I seriously doubt that you will be given a fourth chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am only going to say that any block request must be about you, solely you and only you and your actions. It must address the reason for thew block, and your reason why you are now not going to do it again. It should not contain justification for your actions, nor should it imply that other editors or Wikipedia polices are wrong. Blockes are in place to prevent disruption, that includes lengthy screeds at talk pages. As such admins want to see a firm commitment to (and solely to) not to continue to argue you are right and everyone else is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Also a warning, talk page access can be revoked if admins think you are wasting peoples time with frivolous or offensive comments that are in themselves disruptive. Constant and ill thought out appeals can be seen as just that, and I have seen people blocked for it. I suggest before you launch another appeal think very carefully about how you frame it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Just above, Guy Macon says YOU WERE NOT BLOCKED BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG, SO EVEN IF YOU CONVINCE EVERYONE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT YOU WILL STAY BLOCKED. OK, I get it. In fact, that's what I had surmised at first — but it seemed contradicted by Yamla's Decline reason: as per below which pointed me to the reasons given by Ian Thomson — and those reasons did not discuss the real reasons alluded to, and only dealt with what he claimed were my misunderstandings, and not listening. If I'd been sure that the main reason for decline was because of my disruptive style of editing (whose negative effect was amplified by a certain reactivity in exchanges), I wouldn't (and couldn't, in good conscience), have appealed it a second time. I do claim, in good conscience, that my original disruptive edits only happened because I failed to realize I was violating the principle that reverts to established edits have priority over new edits, until a new consensus is reached. I absolutely would not have persisted in those disruptions if I'd known. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, as the saying goes. I accept that principle, and only mention my ignorance as a possible mitigating factor.Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see how a reasonable person might conclude from Yamla's decline reason that you were blocked for being wrong, but only if you look only at Yamla's decline reason and don't look at the rest of your talk page or the ANI case or -- and this is key -- the stated reason in the original block notice. Read WP:NOTHERE. The admin who blocked you didn't conclude that you are someone who is here to build an encyclopedia but is being disruptive. He concluded that you are someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. So (I won't use all upper case this time) even if you convince everyone that you are right and even if you convince everyone that you won't repeat the specific disruption that you list above, it still won't get you unblocked. You need to convince whatever uninvolved admin gets randomly assigned to evaluating your next unblock request that you are here to build an encyclopedia.

I myself am not an administrator. I have declined multiple offers to nominate me, mainly because I don't want any power over anyone other than persuasion. This means that I am not a good person to ask the question I am about to suggest that you ask. What I would do if I were you is to post a question (not an unblock request, just a question) indicating that you "get it", you understand why you were blocked (note that understanding and agreeing with are not the same thing), and asking one of the admins to explain how you should change your behavior so as to be seen as being here to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to be fair and objective regarding this particular matter. Following your suggestion, I hereby maintain that I do understand why I was blocked, and request future administrators to provide an explanation of what it would take for me to be seen as being here to build an encylopedia. I thought I'd already said as much in my first appeal. But I can see how some people might think my expressed regrets hadn't been serious enough, after I interpreted Yamla's brief pointer to a long explanation, as a confirmation that administrators would be interested in reading a second appeal, which corrected what I felt to be Ian Thomson's misunderstanding. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part. But it certainly wasn't disingenuity. Anyway, I see that my first surmise (mentioned in my just-previous post) was correct, and in line with your own pointer above. I wouldn't have made a second appeal if I'd kept to it.

NEW NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS [FINAL REVISION} I think it's best to retract my above request for any review of this block — unless an administrator who shows more objectivity than [personal attack redacted] happens to take an interest in this case. As it stands now, even in the most cordial of atmospheres, I foresee an uphill struggle, like Sisyphus, in arguing over, and over, against repeated and repetitious misunderstandings of my central argument (which is stated very clearly in the reply to [personal attack redacted], like those from certain editors, take the form of claiming that I have offered an argument (one which happens to be transparently false, and easily-refutable by my interlocutor, of course) — but an argument which I have not made; and furthermore, one which, furthermore, I have previously denied having made (more than once!) — and then coming right back with the exact same distortion of my argument, in a slightly different form. There's a well-known term for this tactic: it's called setting up straw men and knocking them down. It's one thing when other editors [personal attack redacted] repeat this straw-man tactic of willfully overlooking my real argument — a useful tactic to be sure, whose great virtue is that it excuses them from having to answer the real argument. It's true that this sort of thing annoys me — but I can overcome my annoyance and accept it, because it's a kind of bias that inevitably crops up, when editors are arguing about a highly controversial matter. But when administrators indulge in such tactics — and indulge in them at great length, [personal attack redacted] it's an entirely different matter. If this kind of tactic is typical of administrators reviewing my block, then I have no hope for any fair treatment whatsoever. On the other hand, IF there be any administrator(s) objective enough to wonder if I might, just maybe, have an argument which these people have been systematically overlooking, then I will gladly answer any questions they might have. If there are no such administrators, then I have better things to do with my time, and there's no need to reply to this note.Joseph Rowe (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joseph Rowe. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)