84.44.230.33 (talk) |
84.44.230.33 (talk) |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
::::About citing BATTLEGROUND. I am focused on the actual arguments, and a lack thereof. Obviously then, I'm taking issue with people ignoring my arguments. |
::::About citing BATTLEGROUND. I am focused on the actual arguments, and a lack thereof. Obviously then, I'm taking issue with people ignoring my arguments. |
||
::::{{xt|I don't see why you're contributing at all}} -- How is this not you just trying to provoke me? Let's say I keep contributing despite people like you, and a little bit to spite people like you. --[[Special:Contributions/84.44.230.33|84.44.230.33]] ([[User talk:84.44.230.33|talk]]) 02:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::{{xt|I don't see why you're contributing at all}} -- How is this not you just trying to provoke me? Let's say I keep contributing despite people like you, and a little bit to spite people like you. --[[Special:Contributions/84.44.230.33|84.44.230.33]] ([[User talk:84.44.230.33|talk]]) 02:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
Nevermind anything I wrote. You're simply stupid and dishonest and I'm done talking to you. --[[Special:Contributions/84.44.230.33|84.44.230.33]] ([[User talk:84.44.230.33|talk]]) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:50, 6 July 2011
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. NW (Talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- What was this message regarding? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- A request by Hans Adler on ANI to notify you about the case. He was upset about this edit of yours. I however take no opinion on that edit either way; this notification is simply a formality and a request that you look over WP:ARBPS—there are significantly stronger editorial sanctions available on pseudoscience pages like Talk:Homeopathy. NW (Talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm well aware of that. Which is why I've been debating on the Talk page, rather than getting into edit wars. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- A request by Hans Adler on ANI to notify you about the case. He was upset about this edit of yours. I however take no opinion on that edit either way; this notification is simply a formality and a request that you look over WP:ARBPS—there are significantly stronger editorial sanctions available on pseudoscience pages like Talk:Homeopathy. NW (Talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolving discussions
Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Every: me
I'm making a "fuss"? How so? By not giving ground to the absence of a reasoning refuting any of my valid points regarding that guideline? So, on top of berating me for my unsuspecting honesty, you're now basically saying that I should just shut up, nevermind that my concerns about WP:GUNS#Criminal use are spot on (judging from the sum total of everything written in the VPP thread).
Also, "claiming" to be Everyme sounds a bit like there's any benefit to doing so. If anything, I freely admit to my prior history, despite the spirit of vengefulness and cheap excuses among the community establishment. Xavexgoem knows that I'm not a harmful presence on Wikipedia (maybe uncomfortable for some people who are far too comfortable). He also knows that I'm never going to resume editing under any account. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're making a fuss by blowing everything out of proportion. Just like you did here. And I used "claiming" because I could not be sure you are Everyme. Rather than just assume it from context, I made clear I was unsure.— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well, I didn't think I had left any room for doubt. Not that it matters anyway.
- blowing everything out of proportion -- Am I? I'm looking for applicable and valid reasonings in defense of that guideline section, since I can't think of any. Some people at VPP are saying that it's valid as a trivia guideline, but there's already another section about trivia in WP:GUNS. Some write that there are other guidelines similar to WP:GUNS#Criminal use, but nobody has cited an actual example.
- Others are dismissing the problem I'm trying to address by claiming it's a single-article content issue, or by pointing to IAR, or by erroneously assuming that my "vested interest" is somehow clouding my judgment.
- I'm not the one who is blowing things out of proportion. All I want is a discussion about the problems I see with that guideline. If you think my responses e.g. to WhatamIdoing were less than CIVIL, check out how she completely ignored everything I said and simply repeated her attempts to shut down the discussion as a single-artlce dispute. Nobody called her on that. She isn't even trying to help, just abrasively dismissing everything I write. Yet I'm the one who is making a fuss. Not her. Me.
- Ach. I don't even know why I bother trying to explain this to you. This is exactly why it's good to have no account. You guys can hold your witchburning palavers all you want. I'll just move on to the next thing. Nothing short of a rangeblock is going to stop me from contributing anyway. It's just sad that the Wikipedia community is so dominated by intellectually lazy naysayers that it's impossible to even talk about something as straightforward as the very real problems I see with that guideline. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I say you're blowing it out of proportion. People disagreeing with you is not "dismissing the problem" or "ignoring" you, they're disagreeing. You're making this out to be a confrontation, which isn't helping. Then again, you seem to have made up your mind that Wikipedia isn't for you... so I don't see why you're contributing at all.
- Oh, and slinging around "nothing short of a rangeblock..." etc. isn't helping your cause. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Disagreement can only be qualifed through acknowledgement of all presented arguments. You are not disagreeing. You are ignoring my arguments.
- About citing BATTLEGROUND. I am focused on the actual arguments, and a lack thereof. Obviously then, I'm taking issue with people ignoring my arguments.
- I don't see why you're contributing at all -- How is this not you just trying to provoke me? Let's say I keep contributing despite people like you, and a little bit to spite people like you. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind anything I wrote. You're simply stupid and dishonest and I'm done talking to you. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)