User talk:RGloucester/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RGloucester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Request for an unblocking
RGloucester (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I've said above, the behaviour that resulted in the blocking of this account was unacceptable. If anyone has any queries on that matter, one may certainly inquire. Regardless, the most important thing that I could've learned from that mess was that one needs to know when to walk away from disputes, &c. There is no use in causing the inflammation of disputes, merely for the sake doing so, regardless of how frustrated one may be with some of the nonsense that occurs here. I supposed I've contributed my fair share of that nonsense, but hopefully I've contributed betters things as well. That's for others to judge. All in all, this is a request for unblocking. If I am to continue here in any capacity, there can be no more of this nonsense. I know this, whole-heartedly. You needn't wonder as to whether I know it or not. As for what capacity I would intend to continue in, I have not yet decided. At this juncture, my goal is to issue forth a statement of clarity regarding my understanding of the events that occurred last month. I hope this will be to the satisfaction of those who review it. In advance, I offer you many thanks for your reading of this paltry piece. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocking after much discussion and RGloucester's acceptance of my conditions below. Take care and happy editing ~Awilley (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- That all sounds really good, but it also sounds like the sort of things you have said when blocked in the past and unfortunately you always seem to end up freaking out again. It's hard to know what has specifically happenned to you in the last month that has you seemingly absolutely convinced that you won't ever do it again. It's extrememly rare for a persons personality to change dramatically in only a month. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I'm of the opinion that people's personalities never change at all. This problem was not one of personality, but of environment. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "environment" hasn't changed. By saying the problem was "not one of personality" i.e. your personality "but of environment" i.e. Wikipedia, you seem to be indicating that you think that the fault was really that of "the others". The reality is we all operate in this environment, and how we react to it is entirely down to our own "personalities". Your reaction was bizarre and disruptive, and no one reacts that way and stays here. Your answer says to me you'll do it again in the *right* circumstances. Or do you mean your own Real Life environment unrelated to Wikipedia? DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- By saying that the problem is one of environment, I am saying that I put myself in environments that were not conducive to good behaviour. If one places oneself in an environment where disruptive behaviour is rewarded more so than productive behaviour, inevitably that will result in disruptive behaviour. The solution is not to place oneself in such an environment. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is, RGloucester, the apparent issue (the article move) that sparked that last "freak out" – and I wasn't involved – wasn't a big or majorly controversial issue. It was small beer whatever way you look at it. But your reaction was disproportionately nuclear. How can you delineate environments which are not conducive to your good behaviour when apparently any trivial disagreement could be be a potential trigger for one of your blow outs. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In that particular case, there were both internal and external factors at play. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is, RGloucester, the apparent issue (the article move) that sparked that last "freak out" – and I wasn't involved – wasn't a big or majorly controversial issue. It was small beer whatever way you look at it. But your reaction was disproportionately nuclear. How can you delineate environments which are not conducive to your good behaviour when apparently any trivial disagreement could be be a potential trigger for one of your blow outs. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- By saying that the problem is one of environment, I am saying that I put myself in environments that were not conducive to good behaviour. If one places oneself in an environment where disruptive behaviour is rewarded more so than productive behaviour, inevitably that will result in disruptive behaviour. The solution is not to place oneself in such an environment. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "environment" hasn't changed. By saying the problem was "not one of personality" i.e. your personality "but of environment" i.e. Wikipedia, you seem to be indicating that you think that the fault was really that of "the others". The reality is we all operate in this environment, and how we react to it is entirely down to our own "personalities". Your reaction was bizarre and disruptive, and no one reacts that way and stays here. Your answer says to me you'll do it again in the *right* circumstances. Or do you mean your own Real Life environment unrelated to Wikipedia? DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I'm of the opinion that people's personalities never change at all. This problem was not one of personality, but of environment. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: I am considering unblocking here. Do you have reason to believe another freak out is imminent, or do oppose unblocking for reasons other than a potential future freak out? ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe it is "imminent," looking at the block log it seems he is normally able to remain fairly stable for months at a time, but then inevitably, some issue offends him, he entrenches himself in a completely inflexible position, refuses to back down, refuses to calm down, denies reality, etc, and we're right back to blocking again. And he usually continues the same behavior here on his talk page post-block, leading to a revocation of that. Some time passes, and a contrite, polite, even apologetic message like this one is sent, promising that a lesson has been learned and it won't happen again.
- This is exactly where we are right now and "I just won't edit in the (undefined) areas where I get into trouble" is not a very compelling explanation. I'd like to see something more concrete and specific. I believe we are at the point where strict unblock conditions are necessary, with restoration of indefinite block the immediate result of any violation. I would be happy to see what conditions RGloucester thinks may work to help them avoid goinf off the deep end again.
- I would ask you to please wait before rendering any decision. As I recall this block came as a result of a community discussion. Input from previous blocking admins and the community may make it clear if there is or is not a consensus to unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Links to previous discussions: discussion that led to this block and pre-and-post the last block in April, featuring the "you cannot block me, I cannot be blocked" comments.
- Pinging other blocking admins from the past year: @Jehochman: @HJ Mitchell: @Drmies: @Favonian: in case they have an opinion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. I went back and read the AN/I and perused about four previous AN/I discussions linked from there. I can see the history/pattern of freaking out, most of it this year. At the same time I see someone who has been a very productive editor before and in-between freak outs, and who apparently wishes to continue being a productive editor. I'm not terribly interested in trying to diagnose what personal problems there might be, and I think we all have enough ups and downs in our own lives to excuse some of that in others.
That said, I can understand wanting something more concrete than a vague commitment to avoid undefined problem areas. I don't expect RGloucester to make a list of specific areas, but I would like to see a better plan of dealing with conflict when it arises. @RGloucester, do you have a specific plan of action for the next time you find yourself stressed out, in conflict, or in a situation that is not conducive to good behavior? ~Awilley (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are only two potential solutions to the problem. The first is immediate disengagement at the first sign of trouble. The second is avoiding any situation that may lead to such trouble. The idea of "problem areas" is perhaps a bit off. This is not a matter of specific topic areas, whereby a topic ban could be given, or whatever. I believe that one can see that from the circumstances of each block. The problem is a matter of two things, one being state of mind, and another being Wikipedia conflict zones. For, as much as Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground, it often turns out to be one. In my case, said conflict has the potential to encourage disruptive behaviour, as I mentioned above. This is further influenced by external factors, which were at play at the time of the latest incident. Productively editing Wikipedia requires a certain state of mind, and not editing when that state of mind is not accessible can solve the problem of external factors. On-Wikipedia factors that have the potential to encourage disruptive behaviour can be actively ignored. As for a "specific plan", I'm not sure what's expected. If there is a certain plan you'd like me to carry out, that can be done. In my own case, the only "plan" I think can work is to do as I said above. I'm open to whatever conditions may be proposed, if any of you have a better suggestion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think your second potential solution is a bit impractical, though it might be a good thing to shoot for. I'm going to have trouble coming up with specific suggestions until I fully understand the problem, which I don't think I do right now. Let me ask a few questions: Do you have reason to believe that these "external factors" that were in play last month are gone now and will stay gone, or if you're not confident that they aren't gone for good, are there warning signs you can recognize before it's too late? Also, for the "on Wikipedia" stuff, are you able to recognize the signs of trouble? (Is P.S. #1 a real option?) I think there may be other options, like asking someone for guidance when you see the signs, (mentorship?) or even requesting a block. There's no shame in that.
Also, JamesBWatson mentioned some gender pronoun related sanctions below... are there any other active sanctions that I don't know about? Not trying to pry, but it seems relevant. ~Awilley (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have one topic ban. Contrary to Mr Watson's assertion, I did not once discuss the gender neutrality of pronouns or nouns on this page post-ban. Regardless, the "external factors" are gone now, but I cannot say as to whether they will remain gone in the future. Indeed, I am able to recognise signs of trouble. I was aware of the trouble last time, in fact. I knew what was going to happen. However, I could not keep myself in check, as there did not seem to be a viable pathway. My intent in this case is to increase self-awareness, and unilaterally disengage at the first sign of trouble, as I said above. I have no trouble with requesting a block. In fact, I find that to be a good suggestion. I believe, if there was an administrator willing to act as a custodian in this regard, that I would be able to prevent these situations. RGloucester — ☎ 13:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You argued about the Singular they as recently as 23 September. Every time you deny the "singular they" exists or pretend you don't understand what people mean when they use it, is a violation of the topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The topic ban prohibits the discussion of the "gender neutrality of pronouns or nouns". I have never questioned as to whether the pronoun "they" is gender neutral, and hence have not violated the topic ban. I believe that in this world today, people are entitled to determine what pronoun they are referred to by, as is enshrined in our Manual of Style at MOS:IDENTITY. If someone refers to myself as "they", despite my clearly expressed distaste for being referred to in that way (Beeblebrox was aware, as such), that's nothing more than a personal attack. This attack was repeated below by EvergreenFir, who is also aware of this matter. Regardless, the topic ban was not violated. There is no mention of the so-called "singular they", only of the "gender neutrality of pronouns/nouns". RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, the reason you've given for disdaining the "false and horrid construction" of a singular 'they' is because (in your own words) "The only gender neutral pronoun for people of indeterminate gender is 'he'. 'He' and associated forms are the only gender neutral forms in the English language." That statement, and the threat to report any use of the 'singular they' to AN/I, was the context of the topic ban in the first place. Is it so hard to understand?
- More significantly, you've said that the problem that led to your indef "was not one of personality, but of environment." But when it's clear you still feel so strongly about such minor issues, how are we supposed to be assured that you've put your 'berserk button' away and the admins won't have to level yet another ban at you in the future? PublicolaMinor (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's annoying, and might even be called "insensitive", but it's not a "personal attack". ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The topic ban prohibits the discussion of the "gender neutrality of pronouns or nouns". I have never questioned as to whether the pronoun "they" is gender neutral, and hence have not violated the topic ban. I believe that in this world today, people are entitled to determine what pronoun they are referred to by, as is enshrined in our Manual of Style at MOS:IDENTITY. If someone refers to myself as "they", despite my clearly expressed distaste for being referred to in that way (Beeblebrox was aware, as such), that's nothing more than a personal attack. This attack was repeated below by EvergreenFir, who is also aware of this matter. Regardless, the topic ban was not violated. There is no mention of the so-called "singular they", only of the "gender neutrality of pronouns/nouns". RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- You argued about the Singular they as recently as 23 September. Every time you deny the "singular they" exists or pretend you don't understand what people mean when they use it, is a violation of the topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have one topic ban. Contrary to Mr Watson's assertion, I did not once discuss the gender neutrality of pronouns or nouns on this page post-ban. Regardless, the "external factors" are gone now, but I cannot say as to whether they will remain gone in the future. Indeed, I am able to recognise signs of trouble. I was aware of the trouble last time, in fact. I knew what was going to happen. However, I could not keep myself in check, as there did not seem to be a viable pathway. My intent in this case is to increase self-awareness, and unilaterally disengage at the first sign of trouble, as I said above. I have no trouble with requesting a block. In fact, I find that to be a good suggestion. I believe, if there was an administrator willing to act as a custodian in this regard, that I would be able to prevent these situations. RGloucester — ☎ 13:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think your second potential solution is a bit impractical, though it might be a good thing to shoot for. I'm going to have trouble coming up with specific suggestions until I fully understand the problem, which I don't think I do right now. Let me ask a few questions: Do you have reason to believe that these "external factors" that were in play last month are gone now and will stay gone, or if you're not confident that they aren't gone for good, are there warning signs you can recognize before it's too late? Also, for the "on Wikipedia" stuff, are you able to recognize the signs of trouble? (Is P.S. #1 a real option?) I think there may be other options, like asking someone for guidance when you see the signs, (mentorship?) or even requesting a block. There's no shame in that.
- There are only two potential solutions to the problem. The first is immediate disengagement at the first sign of trouble. The second is avoiding any situation that may lead to such trouble. The idea of "problem areas" is perhaps a bit off. This is not a matter of specific topic areas, whereby a topic ban could be given, or whatever. I believe that one can see that from the circumstances of each block. The problem is a matter of two things, one being state of mind, and another being Wikipedia conflict zones. For, as much as Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground, it often turns out to be one. In my case, said conflict has the potential to encourage disruptive behaviour, as I mentioned above. This is further influenced by external factors, which were at play at the time of the latest incident. Productively editing Wikipedia requires a certain state of mind, and not editing when that state of mind is not accessible can solve the problem of external factors. On-Wikipedia factors that have the potential to encourage disruptive behaviour can be actively ignored. As for a "specific plan", I'm not sure what's expected. If there is a certain plan you'd like me to carry out, that can be done. In my own case, the only "plan" I think can work is to do as I said above. I'm open to whatever conditions may be proposed, if any of you have a better suggestion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. I went back and read the AN/I and perused about four previous AN/I discussions linked from there. I can see the history/pattern of freaking out, most of it this year. At the same time I see someone who has been a very productive editor before and in-between freak outs, and who apparently wishes to continue being a productive editor. I'm not terribly interested in trying to diagnose what personal problems there might be, and I think we all have enough ups and downs in our own lives to excuse some of that in others.
- Pinging other blocking admins from the past year: @Jehochman: @HJ Mitchell: @Drmies: @Favonian: in case they have an opinion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Links to previous discussions: discussion that led to this block and pre-and-post the last block in April, featuring the "you cannot block me, I cannot be blocked" comments.
- I am a great believer in giving second chances, but I do find Awilley's willingness to consider unblocking remarkable. We are not dealing with someone who once went off the rails, but has told us he/she won't do it again: we are dealing with someone who keeps going off the rails, and has previously said that he/she won't do it again. What is more, he/she has a history of denialism over aspects of his/her actions, simply dismissing concerns, rather than addressing them, until such time as it is in his/her interests to claim he/she will never do it again. There really, really is no reason whatever to believe that he/she will suddenly change overnight this time: indeed, he/she has even stated that he/she does not expect to change. The question "Do you have reason to believe another freak out is imminent, or do oppose unblocking for reasons other than a potential future freak out?" is, of course, a false dichotomy: there are other possibilities apart from no expected "future freak out" and an imminent one. It may be that Awilley is one of those editors who take the view that as long as an editor is constructive for much of the time, we should all simply sit back and accept the occasions when he/she takes it into their head to become deliberately obstructive and disruptive, but I do not believe there is widespread consensus for that view, especially in the case of an editor with such an extended history of unconstructive actions (not all of which have led to blocks). I see no reason whatever to think that this editor is suddenly going to change now, and he or she has been given "another chance" enough times: there has to come a time when we decide he/she has said "I won't do it again" and done it again once too often, and surely that time is now. (Apologies for subjecting anyone who reads this to repeated use of the cumbersome "he/she". I noticed above that RGloucester objected to us of the singular "they" to avoid such problems, and decided to oblige. It was only at the end of drafting this message that I discovered that their objection to that usage was made in violation of a topic ban on "arguments related to the gender neutrality of nouns/pronouns".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that I do not have the best of Wikipedia records, but I do not think it is fair to say that I have an "extended history of unconstructive actions", nor are there many cases of my being "deliberately obstructive". The only such case is the latest incident, for which I have apologised. I will be happy to address any specific concerns you have, if you could merely provide me with an illustration of what they are. I have not been aware of having been dismissive of any such concerns. I find it hard to deal with such combativeness as was expressed in that latter part of your comment at a time when I am trying to mend the broken. RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You say that you don't think it's fair to say that you have an "extended history of unconstructive actions". Even if we count only those incidents which have led to blocks, which of the ten occasions when you have either been blocked or had block conditions increased have not been a result of unconstructive actions? As for incidents which have not led to blocks, even looking no further than this page it is easy to see occasions when other editors have viewed your actions as unconstructive, and a quick glance at just a very small sample of your talk page edits over recent months revealed other times when you have been uncooperative and contemptuous towards other editors. If you sincerely do not regard the history of your activity as including an "extended history of unconstructive actions" then it seems to me that you are so unable to see the nature of your actions that it is unlikely that you will ever be able to do better, because you will not know what types of behaviour you need to avoid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot avoid behaviour that I am not aware of, i.e, that I have been not told about. As I have said before, if you could provide a specific roster of such behaviour that you find questionable, I will be certain to avoid such behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- As JBW said, you can start with the block log. ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What would you like me to do with said log? RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You had asked for a list of questionable behavior. Use the block log as such a list. For instance, you could follow the entry from 17 January 2015 to [[1]] that contains extreme statements like, "You must unblock me at once", "I will not accept being unblocked unless you state that you were wrong in issuing the block", and "I have no desire to be a useful editor. I am "not here" to participate in this theatre of absurdity, and I've had enough of this nonsense. If I need to get into a phoney edit war to get myself blocked, I will". Note, I'm not interested in arguing if that particular block was good or bad, it is a pointer to some of the behavior that people find disruptive. ~Awilley (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not intend to repeat the behaviour that occurred then. The problem is one of extremes. Extremes and absolutes are unacceptable in this forum, as I recognise now. I intend to follow the liberal norms of discourse that are the foundations of this project. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You had asked for a list of questionable behavior. Use the block log as such a list. For instance, you could follow the entry from 17 January 2015 to [[1]] that contains extreme statements like, "You must unblock me at once", "I will not accept being unblocked unless you state that you were wrong in issuing the block", and "I have no desire to be a useful editor. I am "not here" to participate in this theatre of absurdity, and I've had enough of this nonsense. If I need to get into a phoney edit war to get myself blocked, I will". Note, I'm not interested in arguing if that particular block was good or bad, it is a pointer to some of the behavior that people find disruptive. ~Awilley (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What would you like me to do with said log? RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- As JBW said, you can start with the block log. ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot avoid behaviour that I am not aware of, i.e, that I have been not told about. As I have said before, if you could provide a specific roster of such behaviour that you find questionable, I will be certain to avoid such behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You say that you don't think it's fair to say that you have an "extended history of unconstructive actions". Even if we count only those incidents which have led to blocks, which of the ten occasions when you have either been blocked or had block conditions increased have not been a result of unconstructive actions? As for incidents which have not led to blocks, even looking no further than this page it is easy to see occasions when other editors have viewed your actions as unconstructive, and a quick glance at just a very small sample of your talk page edits over recent months revealed other times when you have been uncooperative and contemptuous towards other editors. If you sincerely do not regard the history of your activity as including an "extended history of unconstructive actions" then it seems to me that you are so unable to see the nature of your actions that it is unlikely that you will ever be able to do better, because you will not know what types of behaviour you need to avoid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: I don't see a false dichotomy in that sentence. (It says "other than a potential future freak out".) I wanted to know if it was just that, or something else. Anyway, I think it's very much a Wikipedia thing to view editors in terms of "net-positive" and "net-negative", and when I see a capable person wanting to donate their time to editing this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" I look for ways to allow them to do that, while trying also to minimize the chances and scope of future disruption. If that puts me in a minority so be it. If RGloucester is truly beyond hope and unblock requests should not be considered then perhaps a site ban is appropriate? ~Awilley (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Awilley:
- False dichotomy: I have read and re-read the sentence "Do you have reason to believe another freak out is imminent, or do oppose unblocking for reasons other than a potential future freak out", and it really reads to me as though you are suggesting that those are the two alternatives: anyone opposing an unblock must either think that "another freak out is imminent", or else be opposing for a reason other than that there is potential for "a potential future freak out". If you did not mean it that way, then it was unfortunately phrased, as the sentence really does read as though those were the two possibilities.
- I did not deny that we should "view editors in terms of net-positive and net-negative", nor that when there is "a capable person wanting to donate their time to editing" we should "look for ways to allow them to do that, while trying also to minimize the chances and scope of future disruption". Nor did I suggest that those views were held only by a minority. What I did say was that there was no consensus for taking that good principle to the extreme extent of maintaining that we put up with anything and everything from such an editor, "especially in the case of an editor with such an extended history of unconstructive actions". Perhaps I could have phrased what I wrote to emphasise more that distinction, but I did not think it necessary, as it did not occur to me that anyone would interpret what I wrote in the way you have done. I did start by saying "I am a great believer in giving second chances", and I imagined that would be enough to indicate my general view on the matter. More than once I have in the past stuck out for an unblock to give another chance to an editor with a history of disruption in the face of other administrators who have been reluctant to unblock, but there are limits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Re false dichotomy: The sentence was not phrased very well. Imminent freak out and potential future freak out were the same thing, and "reasons other than" was anything else. Is it just this, or is there something else? Technically the wording excludes the possibility of this and something else, but that was not intended.
I understood what you were saying, but wanted to make it clear where I stand. To be clear, I am not "one of those editors" who will sit back and put up with "anything and everything" from someone who is generally constructive. I think we've both thrown a couple punches at straw men, and both recognized what the other was doing. So let me ask, what specifically you think should be done here? Do you think any progress can be made by continuing the discussion above? ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Re false dichotomy: The sentence was not phrased very well. Imminent freak out and potential future freak out were the same thing, and "reasons other than" was anything else. Is it just this, or is there something else? Technically the wording excludes the possibility of this and something else, but that was not intended.
- RGloucester isn't truly beyond hope. But where in his responses in this thread is there any recognition that his problem is gross super nova overreaction to trivial disputes? He has a thorough track record in that, not just the last block. The tone here is that he has involved himself in difficult areas, and he's going to stop doing that in some shape or form. I see no recognition that what he needs to change is the capacity to make any difference of opinion on any issue no matter how small into a major blow out. DeCausa (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that I do not have the best of Wikipedia records, but I do not think it is fair to say that I have an "extended history of unconstructive actions", nor are there many cases of my being "deliberately obstructive". The only such case is the latest incident, for which I have apologised. I will be happy to address any specific concerns you have, if you could merely provide me with an illustration of what they are. I have not been aware of having been dismissive of any such concerns. I find it hard to deal with such combativeness as was expressed in that latter part of your comment at a time when I am trying to mend the broken. RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wholly against an unblock. They've done this multiple times. No indication the behavior won't continue. Acknowledgement of wrongdoing does not mean change in behavior. Even multiple topic bans wouldn't convince me to be honest... RG seems capable of making mountains out of any material. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- What do you expect of me? I cannot meet expectations that are not clearly laid out. I do not understand why an editor would purposely attempt to offend me with certain phrasings. There is no need for combativeness here. Is it not the case that combativeness begets combativeness? If that's the case, how is one supposed to respond to this type of comment? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find RG a very annoying editor. Nevertheless, he/she means well, and usually does well. Sometimes you have to see the good in other people, and try to look beyond the annoyances.
- What do you expect of me? I cannot meet expectations that are not clearly laid out. I do not understand why an editor would purposely attempt to offend me with certain phrasings. There is no need for combativeness here. Is it not the case that combativeness begets combativeness? If that's the case, how is one supposed to respond to this type of comment? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that RG is sincere in acknowledging his/her mistakes, and that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to give him/her another chance (subject to minor limitations).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not for a moment did I doubt their sincerity, but sincerity is no proof against disruption. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that RG is sincere in acknowledging his/her mistakes, and that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to give him/her another chance (subject to minor limitations).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Given the level of wiki-lawyering going on here, and the apparent lack of a consensus to unblock I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. I also don't think continuing this discussion will serve much of a purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I unfortunately concur. I was poised to unblock on the balance of this discussion, but RGloucester then posted this. It's clear that either this isn't a genuine unblock request but a time-wasting exercise, or that this is a user who so fundamentally misunderstands the Wikipedia environment that an unblock will serve no useful purpose. ‑ iridescent 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "wiki-lawyering"? As above, I've asked for you to clearly state how I can ameliorate my behaviour, and have committed myself to the norms of discourse of the project. I have not been discourteous. I merely responded to one comment about a supposed violation of a topic ban, when it was clear that I did not violate said ban. I understand that the matter of how one is referred to may not be of importance to you, but our society now views it as such. Likewise, my own specific case is one where such matters are a sensitive subject due to certain questions of gender identity that are of no relevance to my participation in the project, but that are a touchy subject if they are broached. Instead of repeatedly throwing up one's hands as if nothing can be done, if one could provide concrete steps to resolution, that would be appreciated. I have asked for this because I want a resolution. No resolution can occur otherwise. I don't know what is expected of me. This is not a time-wasting exercise. This is a genuine request on my part for a resolution. I don't like feeling helpless. Would someone at least assist me in trying to understand what it is I have done to upset you fellows at this juncture? RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to prove you have the self-control to be allowed back to edit here, I suggest it is time for you to pursue the standard offer for blocked users. Your word, as you may be beggining to realize, is no longer sufficient. I can't blame you for thinking you could just talk your way out of this since that has worked for you in the past, but it appears you are at the point we refr to as "exhausting the community's patience" and you need to take a long break from being here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is why I meant to agree with Awilley's suggestion of mentorship. If there is something that I am doing that I am not aware of that is somehow offensive or incorrect, I need to be told, as such. Taught, in a way. If I truly do not understand the Wikipedia environment, after all of my contributions and time here, then I need to be taught. I would be happy to learn. That is why I want a chance. I had thought that I had made some valuable contributions to the project through my writing of articles, copyediting, and citation checking. I want to be able to continue doing these things. It is not helpful if one merely states in a passive way that I have "wiki-lawyered" or whatever. Please assume good faith, as I'm trying my best here. I do not understand how a six-month absence will ameliorate any of the problems you have raised. In such a case, my positive contributions are lost, and I am never taught how to properly interact in the environment that is Wikipedia. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, or so I had thought. I have taken a long break from here, to contemplate what I've done. That is why I'm here now. This not about "talking my way out" of anything. I do not understand what I have done to slight you, but for whatever it was, I apologise with every last ounce of being I have. I specifically took the step of requesting an unblocking on my talk page (as opposed to UTRS) for the sake of transparency, and to avoid the perception of having any desire to "talk my way out" of anything. This is not the unblock request of someone here for manipulative purposes or for personal gain. There isn't anything to gain. I'm here because I want to contribute, and because I want to learn. Truly, I recognise that this would be my last chance. If I were to cause even the slightest problem, I understand that that would be the end of my time here. Such a restriction is acceptable, and even desirable, in my case. Any conditions that you seek to impose, I will accept. As they are deserved, I have no right to oppose them. If an automatic community site ban will be imposed upon my slightest error, I will accept it. I understand, entirely, the desire to minimise disruption on your part. RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to prove you have the self-control to be allowed back to edit here, I suggest it is time for you to pursue the standard offer for blocked users. Your word, as you may be beggining to realize, is no longer sufficient. I can't blame you for thinking you could just talk your way out of this since that has worked for you in the past, but it appears you are at the point we refr to as "exhausting the community's patience" and you need to take a long break from being here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "wiki-lawyering"? As above, I've asked for you to clearly state how I can ameliorate my behaviour, and have committed myself to the norms of discourse of the project. I have not been discourteous. I merely responded to one comment about a supposed violation of a topic ban, when it was clear that I did not violate said ban. I understand that the matter of how one is referred to may not be of importance to you, but our society now views it as such. Likewise, my own specific case is one where such matters are a sensitive subject due to certain questions of gender identity that are of no relevance to my participation in the project, but that are a touchy subject if they are broached. Instead of repeatedly throwing up one's hands as if nothing can be done, if one could provide concrete steps to resolution, that would be appreciated. I have asked for this because I want a resolution. No resolution can occur otherwise. I don't know what is expected of me. This is not a time-wasting exercise. This is a genuine request on my part for a resolution. I don't like feeling helpless. Would someone at least assist me in trying to understand what it is I have done to upset you fellows at this juncture? RGloucester — ☎ 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x4... I'm really, really done here, but for the record you haven't done anything to personally offend me. I have only been involved with you on an administrative level, if we've ever been in any sort of disagreement elsewhere I don't recall it and you apaprently don't either.
What you have done is repeatedly cause needless drama. That is harmful to the project. You have done this enough times that simply saying it won't happen again is not convincing. Following the terms of the offer would show a degree of self-control that has clearly been lacking from you. It's not any more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not see how an additional five-month absence produce any more change than an unblocking now with the appropriate conditions. I need a mentorship. I need harsh conditions on my re-entry. That makes sense. Dropping all of my productive work for five-months without addressing the problem is a classical example of a failed penal system. I need to be taught. My content contributions are hopefully beneficial to the project, and I want to continue them. I cannot do that if I am not granted the opportunity to become a model Wikipedian, under the tutelage of someone qualified, and encouraged to follow the right path. I do not like drama any more than you do. It seemed to seek me out without any regard for my own wishes. If my words mean nothing, at the very least allow me to demonstrate through actions, real ones, not an absence of action, that I can be proper. I will accept whatever conditions are provided, the harshest. As I said, if any minor error that I commit results in an automatic site ban, I would accept that. I can prove that I can be useful to the project without the negative aspects of the past. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTIs
- "Demonstrate theough actions"? This edit today demonstrates that you are not ready to be unblocked. I don't know what will make you see that your problem is wikilawyering every trivial issue or difference opinion into World War III. What is clear is you don't see it now. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not see how an additional five-month absence produce any more change than an unblocking now with the appropriate conditions. I need a mentorship. I need harsh conditions on my re-entry. That makes sense. Dropping all of my productive work for five-months without addressing the problem is a classical example of a failed penal system. I need to be taught. My content contributions are hopefully beneficial to the project, and I want to continue them. I cannot do that if I am not granted the opportunity to become a model Wikipedian, under the tutelage of someone qualified, and encouraged to follow the right path. I do not like drama any more than you do. It seemed to seek me out without any regard for my own wishes. If my words mean nothing, at the very least allow me to demonstrate through actions, real ones, not an absence of action, that I can be proper. I will accept whatever conditions are provided, the harshest. As I said, if any minor error that I commit results in an automatic site ban, I would accept that. I can prove that I can be useful to the project without the negative aspects of the past. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTIs
- Just a note to say that I'm really busy irl right now but am still following and would like to continue the conversation above in a couple days if that's alright. It it OK to put this on hold for a bit? ~Awilley (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That would be fine, and perhaps better for me. I shall await your response. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, for future reference, what pronoun would you prefer to have applied to you? I don't remember seeing a preference anywhere. Don't worry, I won't block you for a ban violation for responding. (I think it's a reasonable exception to clarify what you would like to be called.) ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- My preference is that the matter be sidestepped by the use of "RGloucester", but if a pronoun is required, I would suggest the use of "he". However, this use of "he" must not imply that I am in possession of male gender. Being referred to as "they" feels like some sort of insult, not far from being referred to as "it". I don't know if people find this strange, but that's how I feel on the matter. If someone casually refers to me as "they", I'm not one to complain or make a fuss. It only annoys me if people do such after I've expressed my feelings on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh! I was just about to say something that could be construed as positive, and then you had to denigrate singular they again! Ai ai ai... But since you explicitly said "he" is the pronoun of your choosing, well, "he" it is.
OK. I've skimmed this discussion. I haven't looked at the cause for the block and I don't really want to; I am familiar with RGloucester, and I think he is familiar with me. (Also, I'm on unpaid sabbatical from this unpaid job and really don't want to be here--but RGloucester is a longtime editor and deserves some time.) I also believe in second, third, fourth chances, like JBW does, but fifth and sixth ones are OK too. I do not know how much disruption was caused by whatever happened so I'll only comment on the principle. I think RGloucester has said at least some of the right things here. I've dealt with other editors who found themselves in similar situations. They were unblocked on a 1R condition (they'd been edit warring too, thinking they wuz right), with strict conditions about NPAs and stuff. I "mentored" (really a big word--I'm no one's wikipapa) one of them, they haven't gotten into trouble since then (and that's been three years I think). RGloucester said it explicitly, they're asking for mentoring. That's fine--it's a good condition under which an unblock can be considered. I won't be the mentor: I don't have it in me right now and RGloucester and I have a mildly antagonistic relationship, I think, or at least we used to.
Given my low level of involvement I cannot say "yes unblock RGloucester under such and such conditions", but I can say that if such a longtime editor, who has invested a fair amount of time in our project and has done some good, recognizes they erred and that they would benefit from mentoring, then this should be taken into serious consideration. It may be that those who commented in this thread are tired of dealing with it, in which case, RGloucester, I suggest you think back on your interactions with others and maybe you can find a champion for your cause. I am sorry I cannot do more for you right now. All the best to everyone, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, the page moves...I saw that when it was happening. Yes, we can't have that again. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any "antagonism" that has existed between you and I is not a true antagonism, but merely a product of the moment. In certain cases, my head is lost. In those cases, it is the case that everything seems an antagonism. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh! I was just about to say something that could be construed as positive, and then you had to denigrate singular they again! Ai ai ai... But since you explicitly said "he" is the pronoun of your choosing, well, "he" it is.
- My preference is that the matter be sidestepped by the use of "RGloucester", but if a pronoun is required, I would suggest the use of "he". However, this use of "he" must not imply that I am in possession of male gender. Being referred to as "they" feels like some sort of insult, not far from being referred to as "it". I don't know if people find this strange, but that's how I feel on the matter. If someone casually refers to me as "they", I'm not one to complain or make a fuss. It only annoys me if people do such after I've expressed my feelings on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, for future reference, what pronoun would you prefer to have applied to you? I don't remember seeing a preference anywhere. Don't worry, I won't block you for a ban violation for responding. (I think it's a reasonable exception to clarify what you would like to be called.) ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That would be fine, and perhaps better for me. I shall await your response. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: If the risk of disruptive page moves is an important factor, they can be prevented with an edit filter like
user_name == 'RGloucester' & action == 'move', (if the autoconfirm flag can't be turned off). Whether unblocking one user justifies an extra edit filter is another question ... Ssscienccce (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)- I think the page moves were a symptom, not the problem. ~Awilley (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: If the risk of disruptive page moves is an important factor, they can be prevented with an edit filter like
- If I could put in a drive-by comment here: I see valid differences of opinion about whether this block should be lifted, because of RGloucester's previous record. I have no opinion about whether to lift the block or not. My suggestion is this: if RGloucester is unblocked at this time, it should be clearly understood that this is RGloucester's "last chance". In other words, RGloucester should explicitly acknowledge, before this block is lifted, that if RGloucester gets blocked again for disruptive editing (such as "freaking out"), that block will be permanent and will not be lifted. Of course we cannot set limits now to what a future admin might do, but I think this should be the understanding. What do the rest of you think? --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MelanieN, RGloucester actually suggested that above already. (See their comment of 19:54, 28 October.) I'd rather not codify it. ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
convenience break
- OK, I'm back-ish. Thanks for waiting. I've been thinking about this a lot, and appreciate the comments that others have left here as well. Here are my thoughts on conditions for an unblock.
- You (RGloucester) seek "mentorship" of some sort. It can be as formal or as informal as you like, but I think it will be valuable to have another editor to turn to for advice.
- You come up with a list of rules for yourself that will help you to stay back from the brink of when you're too involved in something to think clearly. These can be something like adhering to WP:1RR, limiting yourself to a certain number of comments in discussions (1 !vote and 1-2 comments in RfCs for instance), taking pages off your watchlist, whatever. You don't have to share these rules with me or anybody, but there should be a list, and they should be reasonable enough that you can follow them.
- You come up with a plan of action for when you find yourself breaking those rules. Write it down. Don't wait until you're in the moment to try to figure out what to do.
- You agree to contact an administrator willing to grant self-requested blocks if you find things are getting out of hand, before things get out of hand. (I can do it if you want, or somebody else in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_consider_placing_self-requested_blocks. You'll reach me faster by email).
- I'm not asking you to change your personality or who you are, nor am I asking to care less about the things you care about. Caring is important. What I, and others I think, want to see is for you to moderate your response, to not make a big deal over small things, and of course, to not deliberately cause disruption.
Do these sound like something you can agree to? @JamesBWatson: @Beeblebrox:, I realize you both have strong reservations: do you have objections or specific suggestions for these conditions? ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to change your personality or who you are, nor am I asking to care less about the things you care about. Caring is important. What I, and others I think, want to see is for you to moderate your response, to not make a big deal over small things, and of course, to not deliberately cause disruption.
- I think we've really moved away from mentorship in these types of cases, for the simple reason that it pretty much never works. How is a mentor supposed to teach someone how not to go off the deep end every few months? Per WP:NOTTHERAPY that is something more suited for a real-world professional with experience in anger management, not a Wikipedia admin. If R agrees to the rest of it, I guess it could be tried, but with the understanding that if he flips out again, not just right away but after months as is the usual pattern, that a new indef block will be applied, along with immediate removal of talk page access (again per the usual patern) and that no appeal would even be considered for a minimum of six months, and once every three months after that. Or something along those lines, to prevent more long unblock discussions like this one from happening again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have read this, and will think it over. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can agree to the conditions listed here, and have drafted such a list and a plan of action. As another condition, I accept that if even the smallest trace of the prior behaviour is seen, that will be the end. Rather than the six months Beeblebrox has mentioned, I would suggest that any reblock would be final, with no chance of appeal. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had thought I had said all I wanted to say here, but since AWilley has pinged me, I will make a few more comments.
- I am strongly in favour of giving indef-blocked editors another chance, more so than most administrators. (That is not just my impression: I once did a check of the numbers of blocks and unblocks I had made over a period of several months, and a similar check on the total blocks and unblocks for other administrators. My ratio of unblocks to blocks was significantly higher than the average.) However, in your case, RGloucester, as I have already indicated, unfortunately I really think you have had so many "one more chance"s that with the best will I can muster, I cannot see it as likely that one more "last chance" will be any different.
- Of course I agree that we have to consider net benefit to the project, and balance pros against cons, but I do not agree with those editors who apply this principal to what seems to me to be an unhelpfully extreme way, and to me if an editor continually causes problems, there comes a time when the total damage to the project goes beyond what is acceptable. In this, the "total damage to the project" includes not only the damage done directly by that editor, but also various kinds of indirect damage, including the waste of time of editors who take part in the endless discussions about whether the editor should be blocked again, whether he or she should be unblocked, whether he or she should have editing restrictions, etc etc etc. (See the length of discussions on this page about this block, and consider how much more useful work the editors concerned could have done in the time that they have devoted to this.)
- Despite what I have just written, I was going to say that if there is a consensus for an unblock under terms along the lines of what Beeblebrox has said, then I would be willing to give it a try. However, after drafting a message saying that, but before clicking "Save page", I skimmed down the discussion above, and saw just how much RGloucester has continued to be unconstructive even while discussions about unblocking are under way. For example, look at the comments posted at 13:36, 26 October 2015 and at 17:21, 28 October 2015, where RGloucester denies discussing "gender neutrality of pronouns" while doing so. (And RGloucester, please don't waste time wikilawyering about whether what you did was "discussing" the issue or not: whatever the precisely appropriate wording, you were clearly commenting on the issue), and made the absurd claim that using "they" was a "personal attack". The topic ban is intended to stop RG from wasting editors' time with pointless bickering about this sort of thing, and whether or not RG thinks that what RG is doing is "discussing" the matter, RG must know full well that RG is going against that intention. If an editor with an extended history of disruption so blatantly continues a type of disruptive behaviour that has led to a topic ban in the course of discussions related to the possibility of lifting a block on that editor, how can we possibly have any realistic expectation that he or she will no longer be disruptive after being unblocked? Looking at other aspects of RG's comments above, I am impressed more than anything else by continual claims not to understand what the issues are: time and again RG says things to the effect "I don't see what I have done wrong". There are two possibilities: (a) RG really doesn't understand, and so will not be capable of stopping doing the same things again (and it is no answer to say "all we have to do is explain to RG what the problems are, because that has been done over and over again); or (b) RG really does understand, and is deliberately refusing to cooperate. Neither of those possibilities would make an unblock suitable. Unfortunately, all this led me to change my mind: instead of "I'm not keen on an unblock, but I could consider one under limited circumstances, I'm afraid I now have to say simply "I am against an unblock."
- At an earlier stage in this discussion, there was, I think, a fair degree of consensus against unblocking, with opposition largely from Awilley. There were comments such as "Wholly against an unblock" from EvergreenFir, "I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. I also don't think continuing this discussion will serve much of a purpose" from Beeblebrox, "It's clear that either this isn't a genuine unblock request but a time-wasting exercise, or that this is a user who so fundamentally misunderstands the Wikipedia environment that an unblock will serve no useful purpose" from iridescent, and so on. Awilley, however, was determined to press the case for an unblock, and rather than accepting that consensus was against him, persisted in trying to get consensus changed. He has had a limited degree of success, getting a couple of administrators to shift from "I am against a block" to something like "I'm not dead keen on an unblock, but if one is to be considered we must impose strict conditions". However, even with the time and effort he has put into this over the course of more than a week, AWilley has not managed to achieve anything that could be regarded as consensus to unblock, and almost every time RGloucester posts here, he or she shoots himself or herself in the foot, adding yet more reason to see an unblock as unsuitable. I really think it's time to accept that there is no consensus to unblock, and there isn't going to be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's an excellent analysis of the situation. I agree with everything JamesBWatson has said, particularly the unsuitability of unblocking RGloucester when his posts in this thread (as highlighted by JamesBWatson) show nothing's changed. Calling the use of "they" a personal attack is precisely the "nuclear button"/mountains-out-of-molehills behaviour that is at the root of all this. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I have no doubt in my mind that if unblocked it is just a matter of time until something happens and a reblock is needed. I just didn't feel like fighting about it anymore as I've grown used to the idea that no matter how obvious someone's pattern of misbehavior is, there is always someone who will defend it or try to brush it aside or mitigate it with a set of conditions such as those propsed here. I am only saying I won't fight it any longer, I don't actually have any faith it in this idea at all and believ it is just prolonging the inevitable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's an excellent analysis of the situation. I agree with everything JamesBWatson has said, particularly the unsuitability of unblocking RGloucester when his posts in this thread (as highlighted by JamesBWatson) show nothing's changed. Calling the use of "they" a personal attack is precisely the "nuclear button"/mountains-out-of-molehills behaviour that is at the root of all this. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox's comment there seems to me to sum up perfectly my feeling about so many discussions about persistently disruptive editors: it is one of the main reasons why I rarely touch WP:ANI. Anyway, now that Beeblebrox has made it clear that (as I thought) he or she is still not actually in favour of an unblock, it seems to me that the situation is as follows. Numerous people have commented here. Not all of them have expressed an explicit opinion for or against an unblock, but of those who have done so, AWilley is the only one who is in favour. There is, in fact, a clear consensus that RGloucester has gone beyond the stage of "one last chance", and unblocking is not desirable. The unblock request should therefore be declined. Preferably, this should be done by an administrator who has not taken part in the discussion here, but that is not essential. Does anyone have any comment on that attempt to summarise the situation? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand what I have done to you that makes you think that the behaviour that has been discussed unable to be ameliorated. I have caused disruption. There is no doubt that I did so. This was caused by taking small matters and bring them to an extreme level. However, despite these incidents, which were caused by regrettable external factors, I have always been WP:HERE to improve the encylopaedia. I have worked hard to write new articles, to build good articles, and to ensure that the wealth of knowledge contained within this project is improved through copyediting and citation checking. I have accepted the conditions listed above, and more. I understand that this would be my last chance, and for good reason. And yet, I do not understand how your picture of me as an editor in this project is so incredibly negative. I am not asking for empathy, but at the same time, I would like to be treated as a respected editor of this encylopaedia, and as a human, rather than as some throwaway account that has been here only for the purpose of causing disruption. I have never been that. Ever. I worked hard for years on this project, and it was only in the past year that I began to problems. I am not a throwaway account. I am not a PoV pushing edit-warrior who has created intractable disputes across the encylopaedia. I have had my slip ups, and I've made mistakes, but I've also paid for those mistakes. Just as I managed to go for years without causing disruption or being blocked, so too can I do that again. I have acknowledged the problem, and I know what it is. I will fix it. I'm devoted to the project, and have been. If there is anything I could ask of you, it is for you to treat me as a person, and as a devoted editor. Such things do not absolve my flaws, but we're all flawed. I have made my mistakes and I have and will continue to pay for them. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I too would suggest to give RGloucester another chance. However, my advice to RGloucester would be to focus only on content (in the subject areas where he is very welcome) and try not appear anywhere close to administrative noticeboards during a couple of months. Would that be something reasonable? My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand what I have done to you that makes you think that the behaviour that has been discussed unable to be ameliorated. I have caused disruption. There is no doubt that I did so. This was caused by taking small matters and bring them to an extreme level. However, despite these incidents, which were caused by regrettable external factors, I have always been WP:HERE to improve the encylopaedia. I have worked hard to write new articles, to build good articles, and to ensure that the wealth of knowledge contained within this project is improved through copyediting and citation checking. I have accepted the conditions listed above, and more. I understand that this would be my last chance, and for good reason. And yet, I do not understand how your picture of me as an editor in this project is so incredibly negative. I am not asking for empathy, but at the same time, I would like to be treated as a respected editor of this encylopaedia, and as a human, rather than as some throwaway account that has been here only for the purpose of causing disruption. I have never been that. Ever. I worked hard for years on this project, and it was only in the past year that I began to problems. I am not a throwaway account. I am not a PoV pushing edit-warrior who has created intractable disputes across the encylopaedia. I have had my slip ups, and I've made mistakes, but I've also paid for those mistakes. Just as I managed to go for years without causing disruption or being blocked, so too can I do that again. I have acknowledged the problem, and I know what it is. I will fix it. I'm devoted to the project, and have been. If there is anything I could ask of you, it is for you to treat me as a person, and as a devoted editor. Such things do not absolve my flaws, but we're all flawed. I have made my mistakes and I have and will continue to pay for them. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson, I disagree with your reading here. Undoubtedly there are people against an unblock, but there are also those who support, under conditions similar to what RGloucester has accepted above. (See comments by Toddy1 and Drmies.) I have made every effort to understand and accommodate the concerns of Beeblebrox, DeCausa, and yourself, and RGloucester has made considerable attempts to resolve those. We could argue about what should be the default state of an otherwise productive editor who has repeatedly messed up, we could each ping several admins here who would agree with us, or we could take this to AN/I or ArbCom to get further input, but I'm sure you'll agree that each of these options would be a waste of time. The way I see it is thus: unblocking policy leaves room for some administrative discretion. You are in favor of second and third chances, well I am in favor of a forth in this instance, and I'm willing to take responsibility for it. Please don't feel obligated to spend any more time on this than you would like. If there is a future mess I will mop it up myself. ~Awilley (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we are counting heads, I would like to say I support an unblock. RGloucester has been very clear about the consequences of this and whilst acknowledging the real concerns of some people in whom I have great faith, I would still feel that it's a good idea to try once more to keep a usually productive and helpful editor. The costs of doing so are small and the potential benefits large. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would second what DBaK has said. RGloucester made very valuable contributions to Borders Railway, including sourcing images from FlickR, without which the article would not have reached GA status. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I see you've been unblocked. I wish you all the best and hope you will prove Beeblebrox wrong. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll do my best. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 October 2015
- Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"
- Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus
- Featured content: A more balanced week
- Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing
- Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Archiving
Hey buddy, purely for the sake of readability (and because you can't do it yourself right now), want me to archive your talk page threads up to September 19th (plus Signpost deliveries) to User talk:RGloucester/Archive 8? You don't have a TOC so it can be a bit of an inconvenience for the many users involved on this page to find the correct subsection. Just trying to help! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer if it were not archived, but I've engaged the ToC on a temporary basis. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the current Arb Com case request entitled "Ukrainian conflict"
- It is known that I am unable to comment on the case request, however, having been an involved party in the topic matter for more than a year, I would appreciate if someone might relay a comment of mine to Arbitrators. At the moment, the Committee is poised to decline the case because they believe that AE is a more suitable venue. I would like to remind the Committee that they said the same thing in January, and that the situation has not resolved itself since then. Read my predictions from January, and one will see that they've come to pass. AE is not going to resolve the problem. I would specifically like to remind Salvio giuliano of his comment from that time, on which he has not followed through. RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Vague open-ended submissions at WP:ARC may not achieve anything. See my comment on the case you are describing from 28 December, 2014. These things won't get handled by anyone unless someone puts in the time to organize the information. In the current Ukrainian RFAR, as well as the year-ago case, the lack of brief well-written summaries of the events (with at least the air of neutral description) means that neither AE nor the Committee is likely to accept it. Apologies if I'm commenting on a topic that you cannot discuss; I haven't researched that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The reason that no one involved in the matter will go to AE is because every involved party, including myself, knows that he or she is likely to be boomeranged or that the filed request will result in no action, but heavy drama. It serves all involved parties to preserve the status quo, even though the status quo is not beneficial to the encylopaedia. That's the frank truth. That's why AE wasn't acted on after the last case, and why it won't be after this one. I obviously have not been participating in this latest dispute, given that I've been blocked, but I still understand the situation well enough. All that I was asking, above, was to remind the Committee of the earlier case request. Given the busy docket they've faced, I figured they might've forgot it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, don't be so sure that no one involved will go to AE. Volunteer Marek wrote, "[Tobby72's] slow motion edit warring against consensus has been going for something like a year now. If it continues, yes, I will take it to WP:AE."[2] — Ríco 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- As much as I appreciate Marek's good work, it is also true that he said the exact same thing last December. We've not had much progress in dealing with the disruption. Of course, the burden to deal with these matters should not lie on Marek's soldiers. Preferably, we'd have competent AE administrators working in the topic area, as they do in WP:ARBPIA or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, don't be so sure that no one involved will go to AE. Volunteer Marek wrote, "[Tobby72's] slow motion edit warring against consensus has been going for something like a year now. If it continues, yes, I will take it to WP:AE."[2] — Ríco 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reason that no one involved in the matter will go to AE is because every involved party, including myself, knows that he or she is likely to be boomeranged or that the filed request will result in no action, but heavy drama. It serves all involved parties to preserve the status quo, even though the status quo is not beneficial to the encylopaedia. That's the frank truth. That's why AE wasn't acted on after the last case, and why it won't be after this one. I obviously have not been participating in this latest dispute, given that I've been blocked, but I still understand the situation well enough. All that I was asking, above, was to remind the Committee of the earlier case request. Given the busy docket they've faced, I figured they might've forgot it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help
- News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles
- In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA
- Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement
- Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth
- Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages
- Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Community letter: Five million articles
The Signpost: 04 November 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone
- In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?
- Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad
- Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Nice to see you back here!
Nice to see you back on Wikipedia. I already saw you did some useful edits on Ukrainian politics articles today. I am scaling down my contributions (I want to pursue other interests than Wikipedia). Our contributions on Wikipedia where often on the same subjects. So it is very useful you returned. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.
Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
- Thanks to you both. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Now for pudding after your pork pie and artichoke pie... Just go carefully on them as we don't want you to fall prey to a sugar rush. I'll send you a bucket of valium and two buckets of prozac as an attachment as a 'just in case' measure! Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
Please clarify your recent post on Talk:War in Bondass
Please clarify your recent post on Talk:War in Donbass#RfC: Combatants, which appears to have typographical errors. Please could you amend it. Getting B and D mixed up, turns sensible comments into nonsense.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I give you my most sincere apology. It has been corrected. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- This has just cracked me up again. Americans kick ass; Eastern Europeans bond ass. Please stop me from the compulsion to change the name of the article! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Humour is a remedy of all ills. I do quite wonder about a certain editor that has the aforementioned "b" in his name, however. A remedy should be devised, no? For how many months can such things be allowed to go on? RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
BottyToilet humour aside, the problem has already been expressed by VM: everyone is being held to ransom by the knowledge that it could end up in a boomerang. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Humour is a remedy of all ills. I do quite wonder about a certain editor that has the aforementioned "b" in his name, however. A remedy should be devised, no? For how many months can such things be allowed to go on? RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- This has just cracked me up again. Americans kick ass; Eastern Europeans bond ass. Please stop me from the compulsion to change the name of the article! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I give you my most sincere apology. It has been corrected. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you withdrew your move request, why not do the RFC proposal instead? You said you want to narrow the scope, right? Look at "Barack Obama on Twitter"; it became Barack Obama on social media whose scope broadened (not narrowed), which I was involved in. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to do so, Mr Ho, I'd rather prefer not to get into that sort of situation, whereby I become a bit too heated. You're aware of such situations, I'm sure. Whilst I stand by everything I said, I do not think it is worthwhile to pursue the matter when there is no appetite for change. However, if such a change were to be proposed, I would support it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
- Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee
- Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review
- Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling
- In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys
- Traffic report: Doodles of popularity
- Gallery: Paris
Nomination of International reactions to the war in Donbass for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International reactions to the war in Donbass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the war in Donbass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2015
- Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed
- In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing
- Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world
- Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running
- Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales
- Traffic report: Darkness and light
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Notice
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Thank you for your compliance. Enjoy your stay, Mister Gloucester. Bod (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 November 2015
- News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations
- Featured content: Caves and stuff
- Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol
- Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Nature of restrictions
'Topic wide 1RR is not part of DS. It is a revert restriction. Both revert restrictions and DS are types of general sanctions." Though it might be desirable to tidy up the definitions of sanctions, I'm not convinced that there is enough authority for your drawing that conclusion. Arbcom has come up with special language empowering admins for two reasons, in my opinion:
- Admins, acting alone, can't issue bans on people, or revert restrictions on articles
- Wheel wars need to be adressed. Arbcom needs to be able to require process for undoing certain blocks.
It seems to me that 'discretionary sanctions' flow from these two issues. Starting from those motives, the Committee has engaged in free-form problem solving, with the results being recorded in the case decisions. The resulting system isn't too neat. But people generally understand it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying. However the system that was devised to "empower admins" to issue bans and revert restrictions on articles was "general sanctions". The first kind of general sanction was the "article probation", and then that evolved into a new process called "discretionary sanctions". It is not correct, however, to say that "discretionary" is the root. It is merely a subset, developed later than any of the other kinds of sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Disapointed
I am very disapointed in you that you sought to stealthly revoke the GSMMA sanctions regieme without even asking some of the editors who were on the recieving end of the vitriol from users whom the sanctions were applied against. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't "stealthy" at all. I put a notice on the sanctions pages, and the discussion occurred on the main public noticeboard. The sanctions hadn't been enforced for years, and uninvolved community members agreed that they should've been revoked. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't ask any of the people (as far as I could tell) who were involved with the sanctions in pushing them forward, so I call that stealthly killing things... Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I had done that, that would've been considered canvassing, and totally inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't ask any of the people (as far as I could tell) who were involved with the sanctions in pushing them forward, so I call that stealthly killing things... Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't "stealthy" at all. I put a notice on the sanctions pages, and the discussion occurred on the main public noticeboard. The sanctions hadn't been enforced for years, and uninvolved community members agreed that they should've been revoked. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Move request next steps
Hi, I'm new to moving pages and now that it seems the majority agree to the move and a compromise has been offered on the discussion relating to the name of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, what would the next step be? Thanks if you can help clarify. GRA (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- The way that the process works is described at WP:RM. Essentially, after a certain period of a time, a user uninvolved in the discussion will come along and assess consensus in the discussion. If it is determined that consensus is for a move of the article, that user will carry out the move. RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 December 2015
- Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?
- Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Abortion case clarification request
Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hostility due to edits
I am concerned with the hostility user 'Blethering Scot' is displaying due to his/her disagreement regarding the name of the hospital article. Is there a way to have this reviewed? GRA (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I really would rather have nothing to do with the matter. It is quite clear that one isn't going to get anywhere, and I don't have any interest in a fight. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'm new to this kind of thing so hoped to have some guidance. Perhaps you're right in not taking any more to do with it. GRA (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given my own chequered past, I'm not the ideal person to be receiving guidance from. However, in this case, the only thing that can be done is talk it out on the talk page, and attempt to find a consensus on some solution to the problem. Perhaps you can start an WP:RFC, if you're interested. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'm new to this kind of thing so hoped to have some guidance. Perhaps you're right in not taking any more to do with it. GRA (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I really would rather have nothing to do with the matter. It is quite clear that one isn't going to get anywhere, and I don't have any interest in a fight. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 December 2015
- News and notes: ArbCom election results announced
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners
- Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?
- Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
First Great Western/GWR
Hi there.
I've just seen you comment about opposed to renaming First Great Western to GWR and wanted to explain something to clarify. The idea of the new GWR brand is that it can be transferred over to a new operator in 2019 if First group lose the franchise, therefore saving the need to repaint brand Class 800/ At300 DEMUs into the new operators livery. Hence why it was renamed GWR. Devonexpressbus 15:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
- In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015
- Arbitration report: GMO case decided
- Featured content: An unusually slow week
- WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations
- Traffic report: A feast of Spam
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
- News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee
- Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended
- Featured content: The post-Christmas edition
- Traffic report: The Force we expected
- Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
- In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"
- Gallery: It's that time of year again
Duplicate headers
I wouldn't mind at all if you wanted to take the first header away again, leaving the linked one in place. I just thought it seemed strange to have posts dated earlier than the header. It's all a bit messy but the eventual outcome should be the same - I hope! NebY (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't understand how these templates work, so I didn't know that removing that header broke the listing. I've got rid of the first one. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
- News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent
- In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE
- Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided
- Featured content: Featured menagerie
- WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Welcome back
... I guess. Unretired, like me, after indef block. Life is funny. Thanks for labeling the dark frog's essay as such. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Least said, soonest mended. I hope you are finding editing less stressful than it may have got to before. As for the essay, one must simply call a spade a spade. If anything, it is the equivalent of what we call a PoV fork in the article space. One doesn't get one's way on the main page, and so one goes off to hidden pages to shoehorn one's opinion in. You must've noted previously that I have a strong distaste for underhanded behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
I was trying to make this article something normal this is just a scam. What is wrong with the changes I asked for? This just proves that this Wikipedia is a Bullshit except for technical topics where there is no "meaning". The level is sooo low on political topic you site blogs as sources of information damned!
This is a Western view that many of western do not believe. I'm Belgian and fed up of this bullshitting. It will all blow to our face because of INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU WHO BELIEVE THEY OWN THE TRUTH. And you know what is going to happen? this just feeds the beast of hatred and racism. Just look at the stats, at how well Trump is perceived in US when he blames it on Islam...
I wasted two hours reading sources provided and confronting the text with the sources and YOU decide I have to shut up in 5 seconds? WHO are you? Did you read any of the sources I added? Did the one pro article I added that was going YOUR racist way not match? Oh but wait, YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE SOURCES I ADDED, right?
Well go ... arrogant prick truth will prevail sooner or later! Sad to see there are people like you who don't even know why they mislead others. Learn to read various sources and write a decent article and not just express your pre-formatted opinion. I recommend newsnow.co.uk You'll be amazed at how many views there are on one single topic.
165.225.80.59 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
- Mr Bernard, I never said anything about "shutting up". The changes you made did not align with the sources provided, and furthermore, you added a "citation needed" tag when a citation was already given. Please provide an overview of the changes you'd like on the talk page, as then I will be able to review how and if they can be brought into the article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- About the TALK: THIS IS DONE ALREADY. Reverting blindly ALL my changes is telling me to shut up. Citing a cite is an incorrect practice. I cited the translation of what Mr. Putin said, not the distorted summary of an article based on a translation. Just READ the talk section of the page to have my FULL arguments. You were too lazy to read the TALK before deleting just admit. And I am very sorry, but they were ALLEGED Russian troops according to the universal principle of the "benefit of the doubt" at least. If only one of them is not Russian, it makes you a liar. Just think of it: Wikipedia is probably lying anyhow in so many places and the lies are defended by people like you because of laziness the worst of all sins. I spent hours making these changes my dear, and it took you less than a minute to dismiss them. On what ground? That they were not better enough, so keep the old crap. 165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
- I just explained it to you: the changes were not compatible with our policies and guidelines. I did indeed read your talk page comments, but they seemed to be a bit rambling and incomprehensible. Regardless, I did not write what was there before, and I'm happy to revert my reversion of your changes so that someone else can take a look at them. I'm sure that the same result will be had, however. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree of course. Go read the TALK again. As too the outcome I have no doubt, as your American colleague erased my changes in the same way. An encyclopedia is about sticking to facts, not to widespread contemporary opinions. She even accused me of being a Russian Scam... This is really a judgement without foundation and just shows how well you can adapt the standards to match your goals. I am sorry, I think I'll buy a few real encyclopedia on DVD just to fund them against this heresy. If brainwashed people copy paste mainstream opinion to make it a law this is when democracy fails.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
- I understand scepticism about mainstream reporting as much as anyone, but this encylopaedia has policies, such as WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. We have no choice but to follow what are called "reliable sources", here, and those reliable sources are essentially what is considered "mainstream". This is not the place to right great wrongs, to counter bias in mainstream reporting, or to prevent WP:FRINGE views on historical subjects. If that is what you'd like to do, you won't find much in the way of a berth here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is not what I'm trying to do. I just want you to remove inaccurate info. "Masked troop wearing Russian made uniform" is accurate.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
- I understand scepticism about mainstream reporting as much as anyone, but this encylopaedia has policies, such as WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. We have no choice but to follow what are called "reliable sources", here, and those reliable sources are essentially what is considered "mainstream". This is not the place to right great wrongs, to counter bias in mainstream reporting, or to prevent WP:FRINGE views on historical subjects. If that is what you'd like to do, you won't find much in the way of a berth here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree of course. Go read the TALK again. As too the outcome I have no doubt, as your American colleague erased my changes in the same way. An encyclopedia is about sticking to facts, not to widespread contemporary opinions. She even accused me of being a Russian Scam... This is really a judgement without foundation and just shows how well you can adapt the standards to match your goals. I am sorry, I think I'll buy a few real encyclopedia on DVD just to fund them against this heresy. If brainwashed people copy paste mainstream opinion to make it a law this is when democracy fails.165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
- I just explained it to you: the changes were not compatible with our policies and guidelines. I did indeed read your talk page comments, but they seemed to be a bit rambling and incomprehensible. Regardless, I did not write what was there before, and I'm happy to revert my reversion of your changes so that someone else can take a look at them. I'm sure that the same result will be had, however. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- About the TALK: THIS IS DONE ALREADY. Reverting blindly ALL my changes is telling me to shut up. Citing a cite is an incorrect practice. I cited the translation of what Mr. Putin said, not the distorted summary of an article based on a translation. Just READ the talk section of the page to have my FULL arguments. You were too lazy to read the TALK before deleting just admit. And I am very sorry, but they were ALLEGED Russian troops according to the universal principle of the "benefit of the doubt" at least. If only one of them is not Russian, it makes you a liar. Just think of it: Wikipedia is probably lying anyhow in so many places and the lies are defended by people like you because of laziness the worst of all sins. I spent hours making these changes my dear, and it took you less than a minute to dismiss them. On what ground? That they were not better enough, so keep the old crap. 165.225.80.59 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bernard@Belgium
British government departments
Hey, just to let you know I started a discussion at Talk:British_government_departments#Britain.2FUnited_Kingdom re: your recent page move and edits. Let me know what you think! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Maidan
Did you read that section? I may be biased but it seems like total Putin propaganda to me... --Remote Helper (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said in my edit summary, I don't think it is balanced as written. However, rewriting it is better than removing, because one cannot deny that "Euromaidan" is part of the background of the annexation. I suggest trying to rewrite it. I might take a stab myself. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, the pro-democracy Maidan rebellion did indeed play a big role in the whole Crimean land grab, no doubt about that, but how can we include it in an unbiased way, especially one that does not make Putin look like a hero? --Remote Helper (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest we move to this to the article talk page, so others can join in. I've already tagged the section as non-neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Have you opened a section on the talk page? --Remote Helper (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just did. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well done, thanks! --Remote Helper (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest we move to this to the article talk page, so others can join in. I've already tagged the section as non-neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, the pro-democracy Maidan rebellion did indeed play a big role in the whole Crimean land grab, no doubt about that, but how can we include it in an unbiased way, especially one that does not make Putin look like a hero? --Remote Helper (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said in my edit summary, I don't think it is balanced as written. However, rewriting it is better than removing, because one cannot deny that "Euromaidan" is part of the background of the annexation. I suggest trying to rewrite it. I might take a stab myself. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
- Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF
- Editorial: We need a culture of verification
- In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street
- Op-ed: Transparency
- Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report
- Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016
- News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Hi I have raised a discussion on the talk page re the page move.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)